yjacket

We are more selective with electroshock therapy. I call that progress.
No, I don't have evidence-I have common sense, wisdom, and experience. Something this world is sorely lacking, along with an understanding of the difference between "your" and "you're."

I had the exact same thought, but held back my post.

Ah the modern world. Only believe the scriptures verses that support what you want to believe.....the rest don't count. 
Philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 

I have often wondered why people tend to not read, or ignore, the last part of verse 42 regarding the "beam" and "mote". I assume you meant "beam" in our own eye rather than mote. Let's review this scripture: Luke 6:42
1) We notice the "mote" in our brother's eye
2) The chastening of recognizing a "mote" in thy brother's eye, because we could not see the "beam" in our own eye.
3) The Lord's counsel, remove the "beam" from thy own eye first
4) Then the action, additional counsel, once the "beam" is removed we read the following, "and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye." (emphasis added)
5) If I have successfully removed a "beam" which is possible, as evidence with scripture, I can then see clearly the "mote" (the mote I saw is still there even before removing my beam -- intriguing) which is needing to be removed.
Righteousness, is the ability to not only find and remove the "beam" from our own eye, it is also the ability then to see clearly (not blind) the "mote" in our brother's eye to help him pull it out. Righteousness is not blind to sin, wrong doing, etc... It actually allows us to see more clearly, because we are able to see not only with natural eyes we are able to see with spiritual eyes.
The Lord tell us to "call" the sinner to repentance. How can one call anyone to repentance if their "eye(s)" are blind?  They can't. The Lord isn't blind. We are to be like the Lord who called and invited all to repentance because he recognized something is wrong.

Yolk:

Yoke:

For the record.

Is this a class for church?
It strikes me that having group discussion about sex in church would be...
Well...let's just say I would not attend such a class with my wife...where other men's wives in the ward were in the same room, etc...as we talked about...Kamasutra-esque things.
That sounds decidedly uncomfortable.

I do respect your opinions anatess.  I think we are probably closer than we are farther apart.  I do recognize I take a hard-line stance on many things.  Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.
I will tell you were my hard-line stance comes from (and I don't want to re-engage in a discussion, I'm just asking questions as things to think about).
What is our spirit?  Where does it reside?  What is the nature of our spirit? What does psychology tell us about the spirit? Does our spirit consist of our thoughts? does it consist of our feelings?  I have to imagine that it does as I don't see a way for a pre-mortal existence to work without thoughts and feelings. If it does, then what part of our physical body consists of spirit feelings/thoughts and bodily feelings/thoughts?  I can't imagine we felt physical hunger-so sure physical hunger would be a bodily feeling?  What about sadness? What about anger, hope, elation, etc.?  I have to imagine we could feel all those things in spirit.  If we could, does our physical body augment those feelings/thoughts, does it influence them?  If we can feel the Spirit of God (i.e. goodness) can we not also feel the spirit of evil (mind you-you don't have to be a bad person or do bad things to feel an evil spirit-it can draw it in-but it's not necessary).
Does psychology address any of the issues with the spirit?  No, in the psychology viewpoint we are little more than a moist robot.  We have inputs, we have outputs, we have internal components, we have internal circuit boards. Who we are, our personality, our feelings, our thoughts, everything about who we are comes from that circuit board inside of us, i.e. the brain.  That to change our feelings our thoughts, etc. all we need to do is regulate the brain-modify it somehow.
I believe the spirit and the body are intertwined, especially at the emotional/mental level.  There are rare cases where it is obvious there is massive problem with the physicality of the brain.  But 18% of the US population, no I don't believe that.  Especially when you start to look over different culture, and time periods. That ~20% of the population has something drastically wrong with their brain.  No, I don't believe that at all. Do I believe at least 20% of the population has something wrong with their spirit . . . yes absolutely. The Spirit and the body are connected, and to treat only what we think are physical symptoms to a problem that significantly resides in the spiritual (i.e. how we think and feel) is a travesty and disregards the Power of God. 
There is so much that we don't understand about the brain.  Quite frankly, I personally think there are things we aren't meant to understand about it in this lifetime.
Did you know about the Pineal gland? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland#Drug_metabolism
It was known anciently as the "third eye" or the "seat of the soul", the "God's eye".  Guess what it does: "The pineal gland produces melatonin, a serotonin derived hormone which modulates sleep patterns in both circadian and seasonal cycles."
It's not isolated from the blood-brain barrier . . i.e. things injected into the blood stream will go to the pineal gland.
"Rick Strassman, an author and Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, has theorized that the human pineal gland is capable of producing the hallucinogen N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) under certain circumstances."
Is it possible that are spirit resides there? That some people somehow are able to active the pineal gland, receive visions, etc. . . .who knows? By what process did JS actually see a Vision? Do spiritual things affect the pineal gland and it's secretions?  Maybe, who knows?
I'm 100% okay with and agree with nueroscientist investigating the brain understanding it more, etc. 
What I'm not okay with is the psychology field, presenting as fact things they don't know.  They present as fact that people have a chemical imbalance . . .when they don't know if it is actually a chemical imbalance or not.  Chemical imbalance is just as helpful as saying "yes, there is something wrong b/c you have deep lasting depression"
The psychology field tries to set itself up as this almighty field that has the answer, to just trust them, they know what they are doing-when they don't. Their prescription of drugs is not more or less valid than, using prayer, using meta-science, acupuncture or any other field of medicine that delves into this realm.
They don't know, the one's who are honest admit they don't know, they admit it's only theory and reliable double-blind studies on the efficacy of the drugs demonstrate that fact.
And I have personally witnessed it.  I've personally witnessed someone with DID (which is one of the hardest mental illnesses to crack)  receive more healing, more therapy, integration of personalities, more wholeness, etc. from laymen just simply applying the Gospel of Jesus Christ than they received in decades of taking medical pills. So much so that the psychologist (who is a member) was stunned and awestruck and the DID individual was able to stop taking pills.
The Power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ is real and more powerful than we can possibly imagine.
 

You're welcome.  Yes indeed, b/c truth is now relative. Instead of relying upon the Word of God to guide us as a society as to what truth is we know rely on man.  This all started in the 60s-70s. That is when modern psychology really took over and started infecting society with it's rot. It did it in the raising of children, it did it with homosexuality, it did it with mental illness, it did it with transgenderism, and who knows what's next. Truth is no longer found in God's word but in man's word.
And it's infected the Church. We know what the family model God wants looks like, yet how many women pine for working outside the home. We know what God has said about homosexuality, but look at this thread.  Truth has become relative even inside the Church (it's not as bad and as a culture we are probably 50 years behind modern culture . . . but just give it time; even the very elect will be deceived.
What's even more amazing is with the new normal of gender-fluidity taking place.  Miley Cirus, she was straight, then went homo, then went bi and is now back to straight.  Okay, so how does that fit in?  So for some people attraction is fixed and for some people it isn't; or is it only fixed if you want it to be fixed. Is it only fixed if you are homosexual want to make the claim that nobody can judge you so you claim it is fixed.
At what point do you say, enough! what is happening is people are just doing whatever they want to do without any regard to morals and no-one can tell them they are wrong.  If that isn't exactly what has happened in the scriptures, if that's not why Ammoniah was burned, why Sodom and Gomorrah were roasted, why God at different points in time brought down hellfire and damnation on cities. . . than I don't know what is.  
Without God as a compass this is what happens.  It is really, really bizarre to see this occur in real-time in my lifetime.  It was not like this when I was growing up.

I really appreciate your comments here. With so many mental health issues it appears as if society tends to think that medication and counselling should be able to resolve or at least manage the condition. However, with others it's becoming taboo to suggest that there is a problem in the first place. I was reading some interesting material lately about how in trying to prove that homosexuality is nature and not nurture that geneticists spent years looking for homosexuality genes, but could not find them. Instead, they have found evidence to suggest that homosexuality is strongly correlated with methylation mutations in the brain which are likely to be caused by epigenetic factors. Essentially, this is saying that there is a physical cause to a chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality in susceptible individuals - in our current political climate I'm afraid further funding for studies to learn more about this will be hard to come by, we don't want science proving that SSA is actually a mental illness that can be corrected or managed by supporting underlying methylation pathways or correcting other chemical imbalances. This is also still based on trusting the arm of flesh. How much greater is the likelihood of effective change when calling on God? 

My biggest beef with homosexuality and psychology (b/c the two are linked as in our modern view of homosexuality is directly tied to modern psychology) is that it completely disregards change and the ability to change oneself.
“Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny.”
That saying is an enigma to psychology and the modern day philosophy of homosexuality. What the basic premise/theory says is:
a) our emotions are based on chemical processes in the brain.
b) b/c these emotions (whether they be attraction to the same sex, depression, feelings that the person is really a boy trapped in a girls body etc.) are based on chemical processes that are linked to biological factors, genetics, etc. it is unjust, not fair, not right and morally wrong to declare that someone who acts out on those emotions is wrong.
c) furthermore, b/c (so goes the theory) these emotions/feelings are generated by natural processes this means that any declaration that those feelings are wrong means that those who say they are wrong are hateful, spiteful, vengeful, bigoted, etc. b/c to judge a feeling wrong for something that cannot be controlled (these are natural processes remember) means that those who do so they are wrong are evil.
This is why modern day psychology is downright evil.  It completely disregards what the Gospel teaches about change; that through Christ we can become a new man.  Oh members of the Church have bought into this lie that well yeah we can change . . .but for somethings we really can't.  Pick whatever pet modern day psychological illness that culture now deems a innate, inborn or due to some neurological chemical problem (even thought they can't prove it-i.e. that there is a homosexual gene or that it is inborn) and it suddenly changes.  
Then it becomes, well yeah of course through Christ we can change . . .but not in this.  Not in homosexuality, not in transgenderism, not in xyz.  The are born that way . .. how do we know that . . .well b/c psychology tells us that they are.  How do we know they can't change? Well b/c psychology tells us so. We have put our faith and trust more in the arm of flesh rather than in God.
How does the person who has an addiction stop the addiction.  Quite simple, they just simply stop.  It requires the will to act.  Sure we have helps for people that help them develop the will to stop; but it all comes down to the will to not do it.  
This idea that SSA is something that is just there and always will be there is total BS.  How do I know?  Well, it's quite simple. I'm a married man.  When I was single, it was very easy to look at girls and to be attracted to them.  Over time as I've learned to control my thoughts, my actions, as I've matured, I've learned that I don't have to be attracted to good looking women.  I can look at a good looking woman and recognize that she is attractive without being attracted to her. Just like I can recognize when there is a guy who is a good looking guy, without being attracted (even though that has never been a problem for me) to him and not think I'm homosexual or there is something wrong with me.
Christ even said that we can control our thoughts when it comes to attraction. He tells us that to look upon a women to lust is like unto adultery . . .i.e. He expects us to be able to control our thoughts to where we are not lusting after another women.  If He expects us to do that . . .why is it so hard to think that we can control what we are attracted to?
Once you start down the road that we can't control our emotions/feelings pandora's box is wide open.  Pedophiles . . .they just can't help how they feel towards little children and anyone who judges them for having these feelings/inclinations is a bigot . . .where does it end?  Where does it end?
And it all starts with:
“Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny.”
 

Me too!  And that's really why I hate going toe-to-toe with him on it! 

For the record....I can respect @yjacket's position on this.  I may not agree with it but I can respect his opinion.

Do you believe that if I get cut off in traffic and think "Swear word swear word swear WORD!" but don't say the words that I haven't sinned?
Do you believe that if I lay in bed dreaming about having sex with a woman that isn't my wife that I haven't sinned?
It seems fairly clear to me that the thinking we do is distinctly part of what constitutes our works.
Incidentally, how do you reconcile the concept of lusting being the same as committing adultery in the heart with the idea that the thought isn't a sin?
Also, we're taught that one of the greatest sins is the sin of pride? Isn't pride pretty much fully a sin of thought? Does it not center fully in what we think of ourselves, others, and God?
The idea that thoughts lead to actions does not argue for whether the thought itself is or is not a sin. The discussion of whether it's a worse sin or not isn't meaningful as to whether it actually is or is not a sin to think certain things.
We are commanded in several instances to control our thoughts (some scriptures below). Does the "why" of this mean they are not commandments and that the breaking of them doesn't require repentance? Follow the logic. If pornography leads to adultery is the pornography viewing thereby rendered "not a sin"? Or the same for yelling and fighting leading to murder? Does that mean the yelling and fighting weren't sins. Do only the ultimate sins count? The fact that sinful thoughts lead to sinful actions is an important idea to understand, but the thoughts are still sinful.
A few scriptures for consideration:
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/55.7-11?lang=eng#6
For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/prov/23.7?lang=eng#6
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/8.22?lang=eng#p21
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/heb/4.12?lang=eng#p11
For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/7.6?lang=eng#p5
Look unto me in every thought; 
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/6.36?lang=eng#p35
Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.45?lang=eng#p44

Bull.
Fornication is wrong. If you have a weakness for fornication, then I'm telling you right now that you have a weakness for something that is wrong. And my judgment in that is 100% righteous.
If you can't see that, then I can tell you about another weakness you have that is wrong.

You're calling my view that some people might choose and some people don't extremist? As opposed to ALL people are THIS!
Methinks you have a definition problem here with what a word actually means.
Believing that choices we make affects the person we become serves no purpose?
.......................................okay.
In case you've forgotten, we've had this conversation before. I do not wish to have it again. Think as you wish.

The bolded is problematic.  It makes the 2nd commandment of Loving Others as you love yourself difficult.  After all, Jesus was not blind to the sin of the adulteress even as he stayed the hand of the ones that want to throw rocks at her.  Rather, he encouraged her to sin no more.

Because I want you to realize the irony of claiming that saying "such-n-such is wrong" is offensive, hurtful, and drives people away from the church when at the same time you are saying EXACTLY THAT. You can't have it both ways. Either saying that isn't so problematic as you seem to think or else what you're doing by saying that is just as problematic. You clearly think it's acceptable, by your very actions in posting here, to come into a public forum and say "THIS is wrong!" But the message you're trying to claim is wrong is that saying something is wrong is wrong. That makes no sense at all.
Then don't throw out these constant passive-aggressive accusations. You can couch them all in phrases like "anyone who thinks this way is a hypocrite and a bigot", and that keeps you "technically" safe from having directly called those who think that way hypocrites and bigots, so therefore you can claim "it wasn't personal". But I, for one, am not deceived. It is personal. You're calling me (and those who think as I do) hypocrites, bigots and sinners. How is that not personal? Frankly how you can think that others won't ask you to defend yourself when you do this is astounding.
If it isn't clear from above, I don't particularly care for someone who doesn't know me, doesn't understand the way I think, doesn't even care to learn to understand the way I think, and gets to sit on their anonymous throne and cast judgment at all my views all the while innocently blinking their "who me?" eyes at me like they haven't done a thing that should have upset anyone. You basically say that anyone who sees things a certain way must be evil and then act surprised that those who see it that way are offended? I won't claim to have never called another's views evil. (Actually, I'm probably quite well known for it.) But I'm under no delusions that it shouldn't cause any offense or upset to those people.
Let's be clear though: I'm not emotionally upset. But coming into a room of people and implying they're all hypocrites and bigots who deserve to burn in hell if they don't repent isn't likely to illicit anything else than what you're getting.
Do you suppose that anyone thinks differently of their own views?
I can't tell if this is a serious request or a tactical plea to elicit sympathy. If the first then the answer is that is your choice, not mine or anyone else's here (except moderators and pending the breaking of site rules and getting oneself banned). We don't collectively own this place. You have as much right as anyone to post your views. If the latter then...yes.  (Haha. J/K.)

If we had enough faith in our theology, divorce wouldn't exist in the LDS culture.
You know what they say, work like everything depends on you, pray like everything depends on God . . .

?? You claim I have an extremist position, yet everything you say points exactly in my direction.
"when the truth is that we don't really know what is happening". . ."only that something is" (actually only that you think something is physically happening-but you just admit, we can't explain it and we don't know).
How much more plain can it get.  Chemical imbalance is a made-up mental construct!!! They think it is caused by some problems in the brain. . .i.e. it is a theory, a construct, not grounded in science or fact.  
How is the world does that position hold more validity than the idea the evil spirits posses people?  What do you think Christ was doing when he was casting out devils?  There might have been a million people in his immediate area, yet no one was in today's parlance "mentally ill"?  No they just had spirits and devils afflict them.
That is my point, psychology (this branch anyways) is more of a religion based upon faith than actual science.  What else is it?  I prayed for God to help me find a job and I did.  Something happened, I don't know exactly what happened, only that it did.  Faith in psychology is just as much a false faith as it is faith in God.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/charting-the-depths/201007/the-serotonin-theory-depression-is-collapsing
From the horse's mouth.  "Serotonin Theory of depression collapsing."
http://www.neuropsychotherapist.com/is-the-low-serotonin-theory-of-depression-wrong/
"It is possible that serotonin is not the key to depression, and may be quite a distal factor in the causal pathway for depression. Serotonin is likely an important part of regulating energetically expensive states like depression (i.e. depressed states being high serotonin phenomena), but the solution for depression is probably not a simple matter of artificially tipping the balance of serotonin across the entire system."
I can't find it but there was an article by a major psycologist (who pioneered seratonin research) who admits that he was wrong, that actually taking these drugs causes worse symptoms overall . . i.e. people get addicted to them and can't get off them b/c they destroy the brain's natural functional ability.  In other words, the very act of taking one of these drugs permanently changes the brains functions and makes it harder and harder to function without the drug itself. 
Man alive, people just want to stick their head in the sand.  They don't know. Repeat it, repeat it, repeat it.  Psychologists don't know why and they don't know how to fix it.  They flipping admit it.  But people refuse to believe it.
They stick their heads in the sand and make-believe in some fantasy land that going to a someone who studied for 6 years and is called a "doctor" in a white jacket has all the answers to something so complicated as the Spirit, Body and Mind.
Which is why, yes you will find just as good of answers in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as you will in some dude in a white jacket that claims you have some made-up mental construct called a "chemical imbalance".  He might as well say you are influenced by an evil spirit.
But I completely understand that it makes people feel better to go to a doctor who tells them they have xyz and to take abc and it will make them feel better.  From a pure psychological perspective, it makes people feel good when they have someone in a position of authority (i.e. a doctor) tell them what they have and proscribe something to "fix" it-especially when they have no idea what is going on within themselves.  So if it works for you, great, I have no problem with it.

As someone who is hearing impaired I would like reinforce your point and to point out that society does not "Accept" my hearing impairment.  Society demands that I step up and compensate for my weakness and become "normal".  I have to put my hearing aids in every day, I have to maintain functioning of the devices see to their repair and replacement and tons of other stuff just to try to reach normal.  Those who are completely deaf have to learn to "hear" with their eyes through sign language and lip reading...  The only things Society "offers" us when they find out about it... is understanding that it is harder for us, a chance to try again, and some tools that we need to learn to use. 
And I am ok with that, and everything the church teaches us point to us needing to treat all human weakness in this manner... including homosexuality

I'm more concerned that he is advocating that homosexuals doesn't have to change.  We do.

I expect your are correct, but it's still problematic. By redefining words we put out the wrong message. (Sorry if I just offended the message by calling it wrong.) Wrong means what it means. If we twist it's meaning in order to allow any who struggle with anything to be at peace with that struggle without any effort to correct things (because if there's nothing wrong, there's nothing to correct) then you teach the message that correction isn't necessary for betterment.
My concern with sentiments as presented by @brotherofJared aren't the usage of the word "wrong" or not. You could use a variety of different words in it's place that get the same message across. My concern is the message -- that change is unneeded and impossible anyhow. 

Yes, God gave us all weaknesses.  One can say - oh, I was born a heroin addict.  I don't have to do anything about it because God made me that way.  So, you should just give me heroin and get along with it.   It's a silly proposition.  We are not required to "get along with it".  The objective of mortal existence is TO CHANGE to be closer to Godliness.  "Getting along with it" gives the idea that one does not have to change.  No, we need to support with every fiber of our being THE CHANGE.  Not the status quo of wallowing in one's weaknesses.  So yes, get along with people as we encourage them and help them and support them that they may be inspired to change towards Godliness as we ourselves change to Godliness.  No, we don't have to normalize weaknesses that are not normal in society if it's something that can lead them farther from Christ.

The problem is that there is a difference between understanding that telling a person who struggles with something that there is something wrong with them (which may or may not be helpful -- depends on the person, situation etc.) and acknowledging the broad truth and reality of something. Understanding that others might hear the meaning of "something is wrong with you" to be hurtful, non-helpful, rude., etc. is important. But the answer isn't to cast off the reality and truth by semantically redefining words and burying your head in the sand.
Disregarding the reality that there is something wrong leads to a disregard for truth in favor of feelings. It helps no one.
Being careful what you say and when, on the other hand, does matter. What I don't buy into is that there is some universal truth that ALL who struggle with any given temptation, and since SSA is on the table we'll go with that,...ALL who struggle with SSA react exactly the same, think exactly the same, reason exactly the same, and feel exactly the same so as to validate some SJWs view of what is and isn't right to say to them ever ("never, ever say BLAH"). That idea is ridiculous. Some people need a loving hand. Some people need a good swift kick in the butt.
I will grant that those who respond positively to a kick in the butt are probably diminishing (though it's hard to say, because the ability to kick them in the butt has been and is being severely undermined by all the feel-good, hippy, "love" (that isn't love at all) garbage going around.) The trend, of course, now is to cast off the idea that there's anything wrong with SSA because it might hurt someones feelings (and hurting someones feelings ALWAYS drives them away, right? It is, after all, in today's society, the greatest sin.) And those who have their feelings hurt have bought into the same idea and therefore become less and less likely to listen to truth if it's hurtful in any way. And of course the idea that there's something wrong implies that change is both needed and, ultimately, possible. But how dare we, right? Because too many have testified that they were born that way, they couldn't help it, their choices had no bearing in the matter, etc., etc. So it must be true right? After all the way people view things dictates reality right? Right?
Lies.
It's like the deaf analogy used in this thread. By semantically redefining things so that feelings aren't hurt we ruin legitimate communication, which is actually useful. What I mean by this is that we buy into the lie that nothing is wrong with someone who is deaf then it means we have no need for accessibility accommodations at all. Moreover, what's the point of a hearing aid if it isn't to compensate for something that's gone wrong. Oh...but that's a hurtful mean way to say it. It's factual...but mean...so let's not only never say it, but let's cast the baby of truth out with the bathwater of meanness. That'll help.
Lies upon lies upon lies. And society just keeps sucking it in.
Sometimes the Spirit guides us to say things that will only be perceived as kindness. Sometimes the Spirit will guide us to say things that get us burned at the stake. Pretending the Spirit only ever leads to saying what others believe is nice and kind is the worst kind of lie. Let's all bury our heads in the sand some more so we never hurt anyone's feelings. Let's just ignore the examples of Abinadi, Paul, Joseph Smith, and Jesus himself who were all killed for how unkind their words were perceived to be by others.
It's fairly safe to say, actually, that if no one is offended by things you say and the views you hold that you're not saying what you need to. That, of course, isn't license to just be as big a jerk as you feel like regardless. We do need to be careful with our words and do our best to speak the truth kindly. But we MUST speak the truth. And we can't throw off speaking and doing those things that we have been commanded to do because it might hurt someone else's feelings.
The scriptural idea that the guilty take the truth hard doesn't justify intentionally bludgeoning everyone you've deemed wicked. I don't think anyone here would support that idea. But it certainly teaches the clear principle that everything we say and teach when speaking the truth isn't going to sit well with everyone.