into the light

Photo by Steve Bronstein, an advertising photographer.
https://stevebronstein.com/Portfolio/9/caption
He describes how he designed/produced the shot.
(Psst, it's photographic art - not real.)

We know exactly what it is. In Luke's account Jesus paralleled it with the encroachment of Rome around the city of Jerusalem.
(Luke 21:20-24) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. . . .24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. Rome would ultimately destroy the city and temple itself, the seat of the very earthly organization that had represented Jehovah's holy people, his holy nation. The Bible never says that there is a second fulfillment, but it doesn't have to. We know from the rest of scripture that the application is for all of us to continue to be on the watch, because the worldly powers continue to encroach upon us. The end can come at any time, and waiting on some specific action to occur with the United Nations or some other entity could end up misleading us if we are trying to "divine" how close the end is based on what happens to worldly entities around us.

very good  that should all be our determination. very well

Well, mostly to strengthen my faith and advance in the truth despite the ever changing "new light".

Sorry for the delay in response.
You're using the actions of millions to give evidence to the divine support of a small group of men. Do they deserve that credit? Couldn't it be easily argued that Jehovah God is blessing the entire group's actions? The worldwide preaching work, the racial unity, the technological advancement--is that all the product of the GB? In fact, the GB committees are made of many JW "helpers" that produce content--the GB puts a stamp of approval and may offer revisions or additional input. For human purposes, a centralized GB is advantageous, but from a spiritual perspective Jehovah God can impart his spirit to whoever he pleases (and he certainly does).
As I've said before a GB makes sense from a human perspective, but where is the scriptural basis for unquestioned authority? The type-antitype thinking has been thrown out the window in recent years, so why hasn't the FDS parable also been thrown out as non-prophetic? Are we not supposed to notice that a parable that remains prophetic deals with the GB/FDS?
Does the GB even believe it is the FDS? Think about it! Have they are come out and said it? They imply it, but they never state it outright. If the GB themselves can't say outright that they are FDS, then why should all JWs believe they are? And their public relations/legalese speak with governments and courts--doesn't it sound dishonest? When you hear the org say that JWs are never forced to refuse blood and that it would be presumptuous of the GB to claim to be sole representatives of God...these statements just don't ring true! Imagine saying these things at a KH or assembly! You would have a stern talking-to by the elders. Why can't the GB just be upfront with the media/governments/courts on the organization they lead? Is it because they are ashamed or feel they have something to hide?
If Jehovah God the Almighty is using the GB to achieve his purpose, why do they need to constantly rely on plausible deniability and general shadiness? When the GB is under fire, why they are so quick to remove accountability from themselves? Look at how they deal with the sex abuse. That's suddenly not on the elders or the org, but it's on the parents. The GB can't claim credit for all the good things and remove credit from all the bad! You can only pick one. That's a kind of self-preserving, shady attitude that I don't like. It's not Christian--it's businesslike.

(Giannis, Robert King is disfellowshipped so it's unlikely that loyal JWs will read anything he says.)
I remember the controversy when it broke and researched the matter for myself at the time.
The issue wasn't so much that Watchtower became a NGO, but that it also became associated with the UN's Department of Public Information which required assenting to the UN Charter (read it to see what that involved) and promoting the UN's work, aims and values. Every year, as the rules stood, the Organization had to provide evidence to the DPI that it was doing that in order to continue association. This is why the articles in the Awakes during the 1990s softened their anti-UN stance and put the UN's accomplishments in a more positive light.
It's easy to minimize the Watchtower's involvement as the actions of one Bethelite, but he and the other named representative were high-up Bethelites. At least one GB member was aware because he was also listed as one of the representatives on the accreditation forms (W. [Lloyd] Barry). Not only that but, 
"Each article in both The Watchtower and Awake! and every page, including the artwork, is scrutinized by selected members of the Governing Body before it is printed." - w87 3/1 p. 15 par. 18.
So any 'spiritual food' that promoted the UN's work (in contrast to the usual contempt about it) was checked and signed off by members of the GB. It would be those kinds of articles that were provided to the DPI so the Org. could continue its association.
Given that the UN has long been viewed as the 'disgusting thing' of Daniel and the 'scarlet wild beast' of Revelation, it's understandable why many would be stumbled by the Org's actions.

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)