Seminarysnoozer

And there you go missing what I think is the main focus of the purpose of the coupons, generating interest in the product, advertising. I can see how you can justify it if you leave that out. I see where you are coming from now, that doesn't mean a thing to you. That is my whole point in the first place, the real intent of coupons is lost in the excitement of saving money.

I realize that, it just seems that nobody is addressing the "fake" or "false" interest the couponer has in the product. The focus was diverted to a legal, monetary or business model (which has to involve other 'honest' customers to make sense) as justification for the act which has nothing to do with the false interest in a new or different product which is what the coupon is produced for in the first place. If one thinks the coupons are only there to give the person a break on the cost, that is it, then I can see that side. I happen to believe that the coupons are produced to push interest in that product and to ultimately increase sales for that product. If you want me to believe that coupons have nothing to do with sales or advertising, fine. ..... I think that is a silly argument to suggest the couponer believes the coupon was only produced for their consumption not to generate interest in the product.

The discussion is not about what is given, it is about what is taken without the intention of giving back, that is how it relates to honesty. Please just answer one thing, if the extreme couponer gets $1500.00 worth of groceries one day for only 1 penny, what specifically is that couponer giving in return? Just looking at the honesty of the couponer, what are they giving back to make equitable this $1499.99 difference? Tell me what you think that person (alone, single, by herself, etc.) is giving back, not how the company makes that money back. How is that person giving equal value back for that $1499.99 gift they got? They are not giving loyalty to the store, because they vow not to buy anything for full price and they are not giving thought to future buys. The advertising value of the coupons would be there whether the person got the $1500.00 worth of groceries or not, so they are not contributing to advertising for the store. So, just answer, in your mind, what that one person has given back to the store in trade for $1499.99 gift? Please answer that.

You are putting all responsibility on the seller, I think that is wrong. You have never heard of the honor system? You are trying to say that if they didn't specifically say not to do it then it is okay. I have given you several examples of other situations where that is not okay. If I fake an illness and go into the emergency room complaining of pain somewhere, my insurance pays for most of the visit, the doctors get paid, I get my pain prescription and the drug manufacturer gets paid ... everybody wins right? That is the kind of model you are setting up here. That would be dishonest, even though there is no sign on the door of the ER saying, "do not fake an illness". And there is no reason for the ER to stop such a thing because they get paid. I am a retired nurse, I have seen this kind of thing happen many times. But between that individual who is doing it and the insurance company, there is an inequitable trade. The only way you are justifying this is by looking at the business side and saying that overall they must be making money otherwise they would stop. This is true, I have never argued against that. I am just pointing out the inequitable trade between the extreme couponer and the seller, only. What is the extreme couponer giving back in this trade? nothing. ... you think that is equitable and honest, I don't understand that. What I am saying though is that they are not making any money off the extreme couponer. So the extreme couponer is getting stuff for free off the backs of those that are willing to pay full price or the seller is writing it off as advertising costs etc., and most of them ignore that fact. "I will never pay full price for anything" is their motto. If a product costs 50 cents to make it and they get it for free, times 100, without ever having the intention of buying it at normal price then there is no obligation or return the extreme couponer is giving back in any form to the seller. In other words, extreme couponer is up $50.00, seller is down $50.00. Yes, the seller may make it up in other sales in other places, but not from that specific extreme couponer. So, as far as that relationship goes it is inequitable. Even if putting out coupons no matter how they are used results in more sales for the seller in general, still the extreme couponer got something for nothing. To me, as far as LDS standards go, that is not getting an "honest days wage for an honest day's work." Looking at the couponer's side alone!

If the argument is that the store or the manufacturer is giving away the food or products for less than what it costs to make it, in other words, the argument is that this is a charitable act, then why not cut out the middle man and give the products to any number of charities and food pantries etc. that are already established. It would be wasteful for them to print coupons if their intent is just to give it away, like some are suggesting here. I think it is a blind view if the couponer who gets something for nothing thinks that they intended to give it away for nothing. I must be of a different generation, I was taught that one should honestly earn what they get. It is sad to think that people today don't think it is a dishonest way to live, to get things from others that they didn't earn or return in some form or fashion in equal value, like work or being a loyal customer or money or some other obligation. In general, knowingly and purposely getting something for free without any obligation for return of some kind is dishonest. wow, I am really saddened by this image.

I think there are two things you are not including in the discussion (maybe not, this is how I read it). 1. I am not talking about "profits" alone, I am talking about the loss that exists if a product costs 30 cents to produce and the person only paid 5 cents for it, even though its retail value might be $2.00 there is still a hard loss of 25 cents. That loss doesn't vanish into thin air. Somebody pays that loss (not talking about the loss of profits, the $1.70 in this example). And 2. the discussion is about the relationship the couponer has with the single entity of the store-manufacturer, not the couponer - store/manufacturer - other customers. You have to take the "other customers" out of the equation if you are trying to determine the couponers honesty. The "other customers" have no obligation to the couponer. I disagree with you saying that all parties have gotten what they put forth. In the single relationship between the one couponer and the store-manufacturer entity, just looking at those two entities alone, the store-manufacturer or "other customers" lost. Unless, you can somehow explain to me that a product X obtained for free costs nothing to make or put on the shelf and the checkstand worker taking the time to process the coupons cost zero and the electricity in the store etc. is zero. The slight-of-hand shuffling of the thimbles to justify this 'nobody looses' idea requires other buyers. Take the other buyers, other customers out of it and you can't justify it. So, in other words, the extreme couponer gets the benefit of the deal on the shoulders of other customers willing to pay the retail price. If the extreme couponer looked at it that way, I would think they would question the honesty of it. I think the justification that you are implying though requires balancing the loss of the extreme couponer against the total sales and business income. I presented this from the couponer's standpoint. The couponer does not have a relationship with all the other customers. And yet is able to do what they do because of them. If a product costs 30 cents to make and ship etc. and the customer obtains it for 5 cents, there is a loss of 25 cents that has been payed somewhere. Who pays that? The couponer did not pay it, who pays it? Whoever that is, whether it is spread out onto all people who pay retail price or is paid by the manufacturer or the store as "advertising" costs, somebody other than the couponer paid for it. You want to push the thimbles around to make it seem like nobody has to pay the 25 cents remaining to even make the product then you are in denial of that fact. Just answer that simple question then if you think you have said everything you can about it, .... Who pays the lost 25 cents to make the product when the couponer only paid 5 cents for it? The answer isn't nobody and the answer is not the couponer. And the answer isn't that the product only costs 5 cents because the coupons say so.

Right, the intent is to give the product out to one household or one customer to advertise the product or to allow the customer to try it to see if they might like it enough to purchase it on a regular basis. If an advertiser puts out a coupon in a Thursday newspaper (one coupon in each newspaper insert), for example, I think you would have a hard time saying that their intent was for a single person to get 150 of those coupons. Is that what you are trying to tell me? In the example above, how much did the store pay the manufacturer for the product? If the cost of the product ends up being less than what it takes to make the product, someone is getting short changed, either the store or the manufacturer. You can give me examples that only talk about the manufacturer cost or the store cost separately but it is simple common sense that a can of beans does not cost 0 cents to make and ship. Of course, they take the loss on some items for other reasons, to advertise or to bring in people to shop for other items. For the one person that is getting 5 shopping carts full of groceries for $5.00 the coupons did not serve their intended purpose. You really are trying to convince me that the intended purpose of the distribution of the coupons was to allow for a few select people to get their groceries for less than what it takes to make the product? If everyone did that, would it continue? If you say 'no' then that wasn't the intent, it may be a known loss to the store or manufacturer, but that is not the intent. To the store or the manufacturer, I am sure it varies depending on what product you are talking about, there is a loss in that situation. There is a gain for the extreme couponer and there is a loss to the store (or the manufacturer, whatever). Wouldn't you agree? The loss is only temporary and equitable between those two parties if the couponer later comes in and buys regular price items or more of the couponed item. But that is not the case with the extreme couponer, they have no intention of buying anything for full price. (They say that on the show. "We don't buy anything without a coupon") I had a friend who would crash wedding parties at a hotel downtown. She would go in with her date and eat the food and go dancing. There was no sign on the door that said only people invited or related to the bride or groom could come in. She never got kicked out. But, I still think that is dishonest. Is that the wedding party's fault because they didn't post a sign? They really intended for anyone to come in and take what was given? I think there are some things in life that are just common sense but require a realization of the fact that nothing (of commercial value) is really for free in this world. If one gets it for free, it was given at a price and for a specific purpose. The other example, that in some respects is similar is the vacation deals if one goes and listens to the sales pitch to purchase the timeshare. If one takes advantage of that deal and absolutely has no intention to purchase a timeshare and can't even afford it in the first place, I think it would be dishonest to take the deal and sit through their pitch just to get the discount. From an LDS standard, that is dishonest, in my opinion. I guess I look at extreme couponing the same way, there is no intent on the customer side to buy the product at regular price, trying to get something for an unfair return. To get something for an unreasonable return is not being "honest in all your dealings". A reasonable return for the coupon use would be to honestly be interested in purchasing the product at full price.

Right, the parents relationship to the child doesn't have to stop just because the child doesn't recognize any personal relationship to the parents. In the same way God still loves atheists.

Okay, I'll buy the idea that you think there are various intents. You tell me what you think they are. You really think their intent was so they can give away their product for less than what it takes to make it? Let's say everyone got the product for free by using the coupons in that way ... how long do you think that would last? If that was their intent, I guess they would have no problem with everyone doing it that way.

If they get it for free I don't see how there is any profit.

I agree, for the most part with everything you've said here. Except, I don't know if experiencing something for oneself is any more valuable than having enough love and empathy to comprehend the experience without ever going through it. I've wondered how Heavenly Father or Jesus for that matter really knows what it is like to go through mortal pregnancy and delivery. Even with all that was done in the Garden of Gesthemane they haven't "experienced" it and yet I believe they know what it feels like as if they have. I think we all will have the opportunity or ability some day to gain the experiences that we 'need' without necessarily having to live through them. I agree though that there are some experiences in this life that we individually need for one reason or another, either part of the test or something we need to refine.

That speaks of the fact that the manufacturers never intended them to be used that way in the first place. This is what a lot are having a hard time seeing. We should ask ourselves if everyone did it, would it continue? If, no, then it probably wasn't intended to be used that way. It's not much of a "donation" if the food was obtained for free. It is really donated by all the people that pay full price for those items. I don't think this thread was ever about food storage ... not sure how it got off on that tangent. The only reason the number of items is discussed is to show that the person never intended to try it out and see if they might like it enough to pay full price for it later. They are not using the coupon in the manner or intended purpose for which the manufacturers print the coupons, which is to advertise and to introduce the product to new customers.

And a lot of the extreme couponers will find the 'bar b que' sauce type deals to get a negative balance so they can apply it to another purchase. In other words if they get a 5 cent negative cost, they buy a hundred so they can apply the $5.00 towards something else. The whole mindset of this thing, at least from how it comes across on the TV show is that they are excited about getting something for nothing. One woman even did her "happy dance" after her "extreme" purchase of 1 penny for over $100.00 of groceries. I am having a hard time, from an LDS standard, to say that that would be "being honest in all your dealings", "an honest day's pay for an honest day's work" etc..

Instructions? or intended purpose? That is what I am hearing from most that justify its use, they say, "I am just following the instructions and if the business didn't want me to do that, there would be specific instructions not to." In that respect, I have never seen it posted to never take the towel from the hotel room at the end of the stay. I don't think I have ever seen those instructions. What is the purpose of coupons from the manufacturers standpoint? To advertise the product or introduce the product to potential customers. People are really ignorant to the purpose of coupons? They are not put out as charity from the manufacturers, even though extreme couponers I guess see it that way.

My issue isn't with the number of items a person is buying. I don't have an issue with anyone who is doing the extreme couponing, my question is related to the honesty of such an act. Lets say a box of Rice a Roni normally costs $1.80 off the shelf. The store sale has it down to $1.00 a box. The couponer has 75 cents off a box, coupons, after dumpster diving and taking 100 ads that were only intended for one newspaper ad per person, gathers 100 of these coupons. This gets the price down to 25 cents a box. Lets say, (I don't know how much it is exactly), that it costs 30 cents a box to produce the product, including the food itself, paying the workers, the packaging and shipping etc. So, there is a loss of 5 cents per box. Who pays the loss? Of course the manufacturers are aware of that practice, they don't intend for all of their customers to do that, like you say it is a fraction. So, they may figure, well, maybe 2% of people will do that. Then they factor in that loss to what they charge for the product. The price of the product goes up by a certain amount. So, again, who pays for that? All the people who pay the normal price for the product. So the couponer is getting free food, or next to free food because others are willing to pay the added cost. Yes it is a small fraction of the bigger picture but still the same, it is not really "free", somebody has to pay for it. That is being honest in all our dealings, if I dish off 5 cents per box to someone else, times 100, if I only intend to buy products that I can get that kind of deal on? Honesty is not based in whether the manufacturer factors into their suggested retail price the loss from extreme couponers. You are able to really say, the manufacturers already accounted for this loss, so it's okay to purchase this product for less than what it takes to make it? I don't know, that doesn't seem right to me.

Sorry, this is confusing unless you know what "extreme couponing" is. There was a cable show, I think with the same name, I have watched a few times. These are people who go dumpster diving or other methods and get 150 of the same coupon, add that to double coupons an watch for sales and then combine that all together to get most of their groceries, stock piled, for a tiny fraction of the normal cost, like paying 2 dollars for $1500.00 worth of groceries at a time. ... and yes I watch for sales and use coupons from time to time. I also occasionally will take a sample from the sample tray at the bakery but I don't dump the whole tray in my purse.

Ignorance is bliss? So long as I don't have to face the person or people that are actually paying for the groceries and I can paint this image in my mind that there is this monster Goliath out there called "big business", then I don't mind sticking it to him every once in a while? I think that is the way most justify this (not saying you do - my friends at least give that speech to me). But in reality, everyone who pays normal price for groceries are the ones who are paying for that persons 'outside the intended purpose' use of coupons. "Honesty" is not supposed to be based in "well, nobody gets hurt by it" justification. Even if I know the hotel I stay at writes off their losses or has insurance, I still won't take the towel or the unopened box of tissue at the end of the stay. I think honesty is an internal thing that is even higher than simply obeying the laws of the land or 'everybody does it'.

Thanks, I am curious why you think we didn't understand "any of the feelings"? I think we understood most of the positive feelings, maybe not to their fullest but at least understood things like love, compassion, honor, service, sense of family, sense of achievement, being valiant, etc. You even say that we were "very very excited" so I am sure you didn't mean "any of the feelings". I would even think that feelings were more intense, or at least more pure and constant, not flip flopping, like they are here.

Thank you. Glad to see I am on the "same page" as someone, I was beginning to think this was just a non-issue for everyone. I think it helps underline the reason for this life when we realize that we did a lot of secular learning before this life, that secular learning and development is not the goal of this life, it is first to learn spiritual matters and gain that experiential knowledge. I think this also helps with the concept that it is 'okay' to live in faith, we don't have to comprehend everything in this life except the laws of the gospel. And the idea of when we hear about the 'truth' in this life, it is really just remembering things we have already learned, that is how the spirit can give a confirmatory feeling. Recognizing truth or 'the light of Christ' is, in part, is from the fact that it rang true to us before. Even atheists have that, they just deny it. Over time that knowledge can be obscured, like the metaphors of obscuring the right eye. Even if one considers that fact that their spirit (in the form of a spirit child) has been around at least since Adam and Eve were here, that is a lot of time to learn and grow in the presence of Heavenly Father. It would have to be even longer than that since we all were involved in the 'keeping of our first estate' prior to Adam and Eve coming here. Thanks.

It shows our recognition of the Savior through whom we pray. There are lessons to be learned about doing things without really understanding why or the importance of the act. Having said that, the act of praying is more important than what position a person is in, in my opinion. It might have reference to every knee shall bow (or bend) in recognizing Jesus as the Savior. D&C 76:110, " 110And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall aconfess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;" and Isaiah 45:22-23; " 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."

What did we learn as spirits in the pre-mortal life? I know this question cannot be answered specifically because the veil has withheld our memory of those things but I would like to see where people stand with just a basic categorization of less, same or more than what we can learn here (secular learning only, obviously experiential knowledge is more here compared to premortal life). I am curious to know if I am way off in left field to think that we as spirit children living with our Heavenly Parents for countless years learned all we could without having experiential knowledge. In other words, we learned a lot! A lot more than any mortal could learn or the combined secular learning of all mortals. And all of that learning will come back to us once the veil is released as well as any experiential knowledge we obtain. So how much do you think we learned in the pre-mortal life? … consider the following statements. President Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, addressed the significance of this doctrine: “There is no way to make sense out of life without a knowledge of the doctrine of premortal life. … When we understand the doctrine of premortal life, then things fit together and make sense.” 2 “Man was also in the beginning with God,” the Lord revealed. “Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29). Thus, in the sense that our intelligence has always existed, we had no beginning. But at some distant point in our premortal past, spirit bodies were created for us, and we became, literally, spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents. And in Gospel Principles; “God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “It is true that Adam helped to form this earth. He labored with our Savior Jesus Christ. I have a strong view or conviction that there were also others who assisted them. Perhaps Noah and Enoch; and why not Joseph Smith, and those who were appointed to be rulers before the earth was formed? We know that Jesus our Savior was a Spirit when this great work was done. He did all of these mighty works before he tabernacled in the flesh” 13 (see also Abr. 3:23–24). The scriptures tell us that it is impossible for man to be saved in ignorance (see D&C 131:6). This principle is greatly misunderstood. Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote: “There are of course many kinds of knowledge; some of lesser, some of higher value. When Joseph Smith said that a man cannot be saved in ignorance, he meant naturally ignorance of the laws which all together lead to salvation. Such knowledge is of the highest value. It should be sought after first. Then other kinds of knowledge may be added to support and amplify the more direct knowledge of spiritual law. For example, it is a duty of the Church to preach the gospel to all the world. This however requires the aid of railroads, steamships, printing presses, and a multitude of other things that make up our civilization. A knowledge of the gospel is the missionary’s first need, but the other needs, though lesser, help him perform better the divine injunction to teach the gospel to all people” (Evidences and Reconciliations, arr. G. Homer Durham [1987], 224). Knowing that we were “reared to maturity” and some enough to assist in forming the earth, how much do you think we learned before coming here in terms of secular knowledge (as opposed to experiential knowledge)? - Less than what we can learn here? In other words, almost all secular learning is new to us. - About what we can learn here? In other words, our pre-mortal secular learning doesn’t surpass what man is capable of learning. - Or, way more than what we can learn here? (Again, just talking about secular knowledge, the facts, the things that can be memorized, like the Krebs’s cycle and organic chemistry, the names of the planets, what is inside a black hole, calculus etc.)

I guess my biggest hang up on following Skousen's thought process is that he is basing the description of power on Satan's rebellious words, D&C 29:36 " 36And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;" This was the lie and deception Satan used to turn away a third of the host of heaven that honor and power could be given that way. This kind of honor cannot be given by anyone but then Skousen tries to reason that honor is given to God by intelligences by their obedience. We are supposed to only receive the honor that comes from God, John 5:43-44; " 43 I am come in my Father’s bname, and ye creceive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?" I think love and charity are better words than "honor" that Skousen is kind-of missing the mark on. If he would say that God receives His power from the love and charity He has towards all intelligence and the love He receives, that, to me is more believable. Love, meaning He really cares about our success. Satan I think misinterprets "love" as honor and power. Love, I think, is more powerful than honor because love can be in one direction and still be powerful. God can love those that don't love him.

I agree with treating animals kindly, I have several myself. I was curious what you thought about, in light of this strong talk about how we treat God's creations, killing millions of bacteria with antibiotics. Or even using ant spray to keep the ants out of the house.

If you think that the "fountain from which they sprang" is their earthly parents than I think you are missing the reference to the fountain of living waters which is the love of God. 1 Nephi 11:25 " 25And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God." This is just a reference to finding our way through the mist of this world and back to our Heavenly Father. The spirit gives us life, our earthly parents do not give us our spirits. I think this is just saying that if the parents remain faithful they (not the children if they don't remain faithful and repent) can maintain a connection, kind of a one way street. They are still in a kingdom of glory so there still is joy to be gleaned from that relationship but the person that is in the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdom wont see the relationship the same way. Just in the same way God loves everyone in this world whether they love Him or not, the parents can love their earthly children in other kingdoms even if they don't see the relationship the same way. There is value to that. And that link can be maintained through ordinances.

I think you have to come at this knowing well that one of the opportunities we have in this life is to develop faith. Faith is not something known. If I am in the middle of a college final exam and yell out "I don't know the answer, please just give me the answer!" and then the teachers aid just says, "shhh", I realize the teachers aid can't give me the answer .... its a test! How good is a faith promoting experience if the answer is given? ... not very faith promoting at all. The only way it can remain a faith promoting experience is by not receiving the answer, at least in full. And, sometimes even receiving the answer is only damming and not helpful, like all those that witnessed Jesus raise Lazerus and yet they still wanted to kill him. If one is not ready to receive an answer and doesn't take advantage of that information or what is given then it is damming in nature. Where much is given much is required. Also have faith in the idea that God will never give you a challenge that allows for a form of success that He wants you to have. It may not be in the way you think is "successful" but there is a way to be successful in His eyes in one form or another and that may just simply be to endure without knowing why.