Not really. But maybe my two cents may be of some use.
I went to a Latin High School, as an Evangelical Lutheran. To me the Orthodox were just like those under Rome: just in Greek, more incense, but just as wrong.
In college I came across apophatic theology in the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Orthodoxy and was struck by the sense of it. I began reading (I went to the U of Chicago).
It wasn't until an agnostic pointed out that whenever I talked about issues I would mention the Lutheran position, and then go on to the Orthodox position and add that I agreed with that. "Why aren't you Orthodox?" he asked. I didn't know, except that I had the Protestant mentality where it's all a big smorgasbord of theology.
Well, I had read Bulgakov's "the Orthodox Church," when he states that the bare minimum of Orthodoxy is the Bible and the definitions of the Seven Councils. I believed the Bible (so I thought), and had accepted the Councils, at least intellectually (St. John had reasoned the Seventh for me: up to a year before my conversion I would burn icons). So I figured that the case had been made, and I had accepted it. Too late to stay on the farm, I had seen Paris.
Now, for the (hopefully) useful part.
Well, there were a number of things that I had accepted intellectually, but had not sunk deep in yet. The devotion to the Theotokos, for example. It was not until years later, arguing about her with a Muslim, that I did "get it" as far as her role and relationship with us.
I also had trouble with the Orthodox phronema, for quite some time trying to read all the books, get down all the information, just like I had Lutheranism between the covers of the Book of Concord. Thankfully, soon I realized that was like trying to drink the ocean, and just drank.
My point, if I had to wait until I had all questions answered, all discomforts (I had eliminated doubts) smoothed out, all devotions from the innermost recesses of my heart, until I could become Christmated, it would have been quite a long wait.
In many ways, there are certain things that can happen only when you are in the Church, no matter if you have had your head through the window when you are looking in. You have to walk in the door.
A couple years ago, I came across my old copy of the Book of Concord, not having seen it for over a decade, maybe more. When I had converted I didn't think that there was that much difference. Looking at it with Orthodox eyes, I kept saying to myself "You believed THAT?!" (I also noticed the name of the translator: Jaroslav Pelikan, another devout Lutheran who went East).
I've been to Rome (literally). Yes, it's a nice Church. But I have also been around the world, and found the Orthodox who believe the same Faith. Moreover, I have been all over the Middle East, seeing the shrines, and seen how the Fathers had the same Faith.
It's easy to have a large Church, with a strong cetralized head, in the safety of friendly neighbors. The Orthodox are among those hell bent on the Church's destruction, with no strong unified head. Yet the Church remains One, Holy and Apostolic, ever ready to witness the Faith of the Martyrs.
I understand the force of the appearance (yes, it makes sense).
As for the cherry picked quotes, I don't worry about them. Sifting through them I have never found them a threat.
As for leniency of things, like remarriage, I'm not impressed with the letter of the law, which much of the annulment scheme amounts to.
As for differences, God doesn't give us things cut and dry, and I think I see the wisdom in that (btw, for full disclosure, I've communed with the OO, but a formal acceptance of Chalcedon (and not just its Faith) must be forcoming). Rome's not so united as it makes out. The American branch can amply prove that.
I have not had the experience of any Orthodox downplaying the filioque, but those who know me, know better than do this in my presence.
So, in sum, based on my pitiful experience I wouldn't worry about it. I don't know all the answers, but I DO know who has them, the Orthodox Church.
Oh, btw, welcome home.