Honesty - extreme couponing

[Dravin]

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?

Exactly what the seller is asking for in return, coupons and money (however much it may or may not be).

Edited July 20, 2011 by Dravin

[Seminarysnoozer]

*shrug* As this thread crosses into it's 4th page, it's increasingly obvious that nobody's really convincing each other to budge an inch from existing opinions.

At the end of the day, a "fair price" is what a buyer is willing to pay, and a seller is willing to recieve. There's nothing wrong with a buyer wanting to pay zero. If a seller is willing to accept zero, but really isn't willing to accept zero, then the seller has the problem, not the buyer.

There is no ethical or moral duty for a buyer to spend a single second thinking about if the seller is "getting enough". Getting superior legal deals on stuff by following policies and rules, does not violate honesty.

It's called Adam Smith's invisible hand - I don't care, and I don't have to care about the cost structure of the entity I'm doing business with. It's the foundation of capitalism. Disagree with it all you you like - we're not budging an inch.

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.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Exactly what the seller is asking for in return, coupons and money (however much it may or may not be).

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.

[beefche]

I'm still trying to figure out for the life of me how you know the intent of coupons--have you a reference or something from a manufacturer/store that states that the coupon isn't intended to be used as a means other than to try a new product?

[NeuroTypical]

it just seems that nobody is addressing the "fake" or "false" interest the couponer has in the product.

Compulsive behavior is not healthy. How's that?

I happen to believe that the coupons are produced to push interest in that product and to ultimately increase sales for that product.

Of course that's why coupons came into existence. Companies target several different demographics. And price-sensitive shoppers, and shoppers who wish to believe they're getting bargains, are two demographics. Coupons target those two demographics.

And again, if other demographics chose to use them too, there's nothing wrong with that.

the real intent of coupons is lost in the excitement of saving money.

Ok. But, as a counter to your earlier statements about temple recommend questions and being honest in dealings, there's no ethical or moral burden on the buyer to seek to aid the seller in seller's efforts to realize their intent.

[Dravin]

I realize that, it just seems that nobody is addressing the "fake" or "false" interest the couponer has in the product.

There is nothing fake about if, if you obtain two dozen sticks of deodorant you have a quite obvious and quite real interest in the product. Unless these people are throwing the stuff in a burn barrel... What you mean is they have no intention of becoming habitual purchasers of the product regardless of the price point or the availability of coupons. Of which there is no obligation by the use of coupons (or sales) that you will become such.

And there you go missing what I think is the main focus of the purpose of the coupons, generating interest in the product, advertising

If someone buys several dozen of a product then the coupons have successfully done their job, it's generated interest in the product and successfully advertised it by enticing the buyer to purchase it. By such a stipulation they're using the coupons exactly as it's intended, to move product off the shelves and at the agreed upon cost to the manufacturer.

I can see how you can justify it if you leave that out.

And I can see how you justify your position if you include the obligation you think exists.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Dravin

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is nothing fake about if, if you obtain two dozen sticks of deodorant you have a quite obvious and quite real interest in the product. Unless these people are throwing the stuff in a burn barrel... What you mean is they have no intention of becoming habitual purchasers of the product regardless of the price point or the availability of coupons. Of which there is no obligation by the use of coupons (or sales) that you will become such.

If someone buys several dozen of a product then the coupons have successfully done their job, it's generated interest in the product and successfully advertised it by enticing the buyer to purchase it. By such a stipulation they're using the coupons exactly as it's intended, to move product off the shelves and at the agreed upon cost to the manufacturer.

And I can see how you justify your position if you include the obligation you think exists.

Seriously? come on. An extreme couponer only buys the products that are obtained for next to nothing and definitely less than the production value of the product. There is a loss by their "purchase" without any hope for recovering that loss directly from that person because they only obtain (I wouldn't even call it a purchase) the products that are for next to nothing. Their intent, shown by getting 150 bottles of BBQ sauce, etc. is to never purchase that product.

You are wrong in thinking it generated interest in (purchasing) the product from that person. I was talking about generating interest in purchasing the product at a profitable amount. You know that, you are trying to make it sound silly by saying it is interest in the product alone. Please, I have said it that way many times, it is to generate interest in profitable purchases of that product. The coupons have not successfully done their job in that respect. It did not entice the "buyer" (should be called the 'collector of free goods' - not buyer) to purchase anything, there is no purchase, it is obtained for free.

If you think the main reason for coupons is to move the product off the shelf, then the manufacturers and stores are just dumb, they just give the stuff to the food pantry and cut out the middle man. Obviously, there is more to it than that and you are ignoring the advertising and future purchase purpose for coupons. That is the main reason for the coupons, not to push the product off the shelves, give me a break.

Don't try to throw in regular use of coupons into the discussion, of course I am only talking about "extreme couponing". If there was an actual purchase involved then fine, but we were never talking about that.

[Dravin]

Seriously? come on.

Yeah, that's pretty much been my take on your posts since the beginning of the thread.

An extreme couponer only buys the products that are obtained for next to nothing and definitely less than the production value of the product.

And? If that's what it's being offered at.

You know that, you are trying to make it sound silly by saying it is interest in the product alone.

You're quite capable of making your position sound silly without any help from me.

Please, I have said it that way many times, it is to generate interest in profitable purchases of that product.

Yes, and many times you've been wrong. The intent of a coupon is to exchange it for $X off the purchase price offered by the store pursuant to the restrictions written on it. Not to enter into some sort of secret combination to purchase some unspecified amount without coupons. Same with sales.

It did not entice the "buyer" (should be called the 'collector of free goods' - not buyer) to purchase anything, there is no purchase, it is obtained for free.

The person purchased the goods with little slips of paper that promised to reimburse the store a set amount (coupons) and/or cash. If the store told me my total was three jelly beans and a piece of navel lint guess what? If I take them up on it I just purchased those goods for three jelly beans and a piece of navel lint.

That you think the store should be requesting more as part of their offer doesn't invalidate it.

Don't try to throw in regular use of coupons into the discussion, of course I am only talking about "extreme couponing".

The only difference between extreme couponing and regular couponing is the stacking of the coupon with sales. It doesn't matter to Nabisco if someone buys 20 boxes of crackers using coupons for a register price of $2.50 a piece or if they are buying them at $0.10 a piece (or even free). The store has already paid Nabisco the asking price for the items on the shelf and will do so when they purchase more to restock the shelves.

If one use is immoral because of your favorite buzz phrase so is the other.

If there was an actual purchase involved then fine, but we were never talking about that.

There was. The store made a purchase from the manufacturer and the couponer (extreme or not) made a purchase from the store (in cash and/or coupons). Once again, that you think the store should be demanding more in exchange for their goods does not mean it's not a purchase nor does it mean that an interaction in which all parties are following the stipulated requirements for the exchange is dishonest.

I have to hand it to you.

You've turn this:

Person A: If you give these scraps of paper to a store we'll reimburse them, just follow the limitations on the coupon.

Person B: If you give us those scraps of paper plus some amount of money, heck maybe if you just give us that scraps of paper, we'll give you these groceries in exchange.

Person C: I'll take it.

Into something immoral, of course you did it by making up obligations, which does sort of tarnish the impressiveness of it all.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Dravin

[jaleneG]

The reality TV has resulted in “extreme couponing turning into a growing trend It's just like normal coupon clipping, but taken to an extreme. Consumers clip an enormous number of coupons and conserve large amounts on large purchases. Retail organizations are taking notice, and they are not amused. There is an increasing backlash against the extreme use of coupons. I found this here: Retail firms begin backlash against extreme couponing.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The reality TV has resulted in “extreme couponing turning into a growing trend It's just like normal coupon clipping, but taken to an extreme. Consumers clip an enormous number of coupons and conserve large amounts on large purchases. Retail organizations are taking notice, and they are not amused. There is an increasing backlash against the extreme use of coupons. I found this here: Retail firms begin backlash against extreme couponing.

Thanks, good article. Shows that they really didn't intend for the coupons to be used that way. Of course, they let is slide when it is only a select few doing it but when it reaches a certain amount then they can't support it. Awesome! thanks.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Into something immoral, of course you did it by making up obligations, which does sort of tarnish the impressiveness of it all.

I didn't make up any obligations. The question was posed to see if people felt like they had any obligations, obviously, you don't feel that way but many do. If you don't feel like you have the obligation then you can easily justify taking something for "pieces of paper". If you want to justify that in your mind go ahead, I can't stop you and I don't have the power to turn anything immoral or not. It either is immoral or it isn't. The only thing I was trying to do is question it's morality. Justification based in someone else paying the price and not seeing the other side is a common way to ignore the morality of an act. Of course, this is not like murder etc. I am just shocked at how blind people are to what they are doing. People that are blind to this will probably stay blind to it, I can't even begin to change that.

I have used coupon advertisements in business in local flyers. My purpose for using them was to increase awareness of our business and to bring more people into our business. It was not for the purpose of giving away services for nothing. I think that is a silly and naive view of what coupons are for to say that they are not for the purpose of generating more income but just to give away a product, end of story. That is exactly the source of the problem, the person is just looking at their side of the transaction and not the 'real' intent of the production of coupon advertisements. ... They put coupons in the ads, you know. "Ads" meaning advertisements.

If you owned a business and put out coupons, you would tell me that the only reason you would ever put out a coupon is to give product away without any interest in advertisement? Not to increase awareness or profitability? Boloney. .... then don't waste the printing of the coupons, just give it to a charity. I can't believe that the business would waste money like that, they could just have the charity come and pick it up with one phone call ... would cost nothing. That, to me, is a blind, not-the-whole-truth argument.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The only difference between extreme couponing and regular couponing is the stacking of the coupon with sales.

You are wrong here. This may be what you are not seeing. The difference is that the extreme couponer has no intention of buying anything but free or nearly free items from the store whereas the occasional coupon user still buys profitable items from that store. The extreme couponer thumbs their nose at the idea of giving any profit to the store. Like most moral or immoral things, it is the intent that is important.

[Justice]

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.

There is a commandment that says "Thou shalt not steal." That should cover the towels.

There is not a commandment that tells manufactures how they have to handle their coupon advertising. They are allowed to write and print their own coupons. They set the terms of use. Stores follow those instructions.

Once a company approves a coupon for distribution, then all you have to go by is what is written on the coupon. You have nothing else to go by. Follow those instructions and that is the intented purpose for the coupon.

I make every effort to be honest in all my dealings with all I come in contact with. If I thought there was even a hint of dishonesty, I wouldn't be involved in this discussion. I just don't see how if you and the retail store follow the instructions the manufacturer put in place for the coupon that anything dishonest is going on.

If one intends to use a coupon for an unintented use, then I'm on your side.

[Justice]

That article was a good read. What I get from the article is that many more people are now using coupons to begin with. This is because of down economic times and the extreme coupon shows on tv.

To me, the answer is simple. The manufacturer needs to include simple instructions for the intended use of their coupons, if that is their intent. "One coupon per item per visit" would go a long way toward preventing extreme couponing if that's all they were worried about.

I think the bigger problem is that more people are now using coupons than before, which is not the fault of people who use them to their fullest extent, if allowed by the manufacturer.

If a company doesn't want anyone extreme couponing they can easily prevent it.

If I were going on a camping trip with the scouts and my assignment was to bring product "A" for everyone, and I found a coupon that did not limit use, I would use a coupon for every one I bought. So, just because a person does the same thing, but intends to keep all the product in storage, now it's wrong.

If the manufacturer wrote one coupon per purchase per visit, I would have to return to the store many times to use all those coupons. Maybe they write one coupon per 24 hours. Maybe one coupon per person for life. If I follow those instructions, then I'm OK... IMO.

[pam]

I thought this article was pretty interesting:

Extreme Couponing: Never Hotter, Yet Never More Pointless | Moneyland | TIME.com

[yjacket]

You are wrong here. This may be what you are not seeing. The difference is that the extreme couponer has no intention of buying anything but free or nearly free items from the store whereas the occasional coupon user still buys profitable items from that store. The extreme couponer thumbs their nose at the idea of giving any profit to the store. Like most moral or immoral things, it is the intent that is important.

Intent has nothing to do with anything. A couple of good economic classes would do wonders to help out. Intent, feelings, common sense etc. are moot. The basic argument presented is "I don't think it's fair; I don't think coupons were intended for that use; someone is getting something for nothing, how is that honest?; they don't really intend to use it; they are selling at a loss, etc."

All of these arguments are based on feelings rather than facts. The amount of money it takes to produce an item is completely irrelevant to what it sells for. It is called sunk costs. Profit is irrelevant at the point of sale! Profit only determines if they will stay in business.

The only things that determine the ultimate price are supply and demand; ultimately what the buyer is willing to pay and what the seller is willing to get. If the seller is unwilling to sell at a given price they will not sell (i.e. they will change the rules).

Extreme couponing doesn't involve honesty in anyway. It would only be dishonest if one tries to defraud, like try and use a coupon specified for toothpaste for turkey. In that case it is clearly dishonest.

My wife "extreme" coupons and saves about 60-65% regularly on our total groceries. I hardly think she is dishonest.

Morality is actually pretty cut and dry (don't lie, steal, cheat, abuse, run around, go to church, say your prayers, etc.). Intent can determine degree but generally one can't say "I cheated on my wife but I didn't mean to I was in a bad situation, etc." and be moral.

Arguments like these strike me as inferiority driven or a take on "keeping up with the jones's". An I wouldn't do it, b/c I don't feel it's fair so those who are doing it are wrong.

Is it fair that someone today can buy a house in some parts of the country at 25% off peak pricing? Probably not, but it doesn't matter. Unfortunately to many it does matter; instead of worrying about your neighbor so much people should worry about their own life. Just b/c I wouldn't buy 100 bags of dogfood for overage doesn't mean it's dishonest or wrong.

From wiki:

Honesty refers to a facet of moral character and denotes positive, virtuous attributes such as integrity, truthfulness, and straightforwardness along with the absence of lying, cheating, or theft.[1]

Integrity:Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. (basically are you consistent in what you do)

I do not see how extreme couponers are lying, cheating, or stealing; I do not see how they are not consistent (integrity);

[Echo2002]

I thought this article was pretty interesting:

Extreme Couponing: Never Hotter, Yet Never More Pointless | Moneyland | TIME.com

That's a good article. I tried extreme couponing for a couple of months and wasn't very successful. There are some items I got really cheap, but I discovered I was buying stuff I never would have used before and then having to pay for stuff I really needed on top of what I didn't need. I didn't think I was saving that much money, I never bought $100 worth of groceries and only paid $2.00 for them. I was spending all of my extra time, of which I don't have a lot of, finding sales and collecting coupons. It's just not worth it to me.

I do still clip coupons but I make my grocery list out first and then gather any coupons I might have for the items on my list. If I do see an item I normally use on sale and I have a coupon for it I might go a head and buy it even if I didn't need it right away.

[pam]

That's pretty much what I do. I clip coupons for items that I know for sure I will use. Hey if I can save $3-$4 dollars on a grocery trip, I'm happy.

[MarginOfError]

Wow! 15 pages on couponing! Unbelievable! Has couponing supplanted same-sex marriage as most controversial topic on the boards?

Parable of the Unjust Steward

[Seminarysnoozer]

Intent has nothing to do with anything. A couple of good economic classes would do wonders to help out. Intent, feelings, common sense etc. are moot. The basic argument presented is "I don't think it's fair; I don't think coupons were intended for that use; someone is getting something for nothing, how is that honest?; they don't really intend to use it; they are selling at a loss, etc."

Morality is actually pretty cut and dry (don't lie, steal, cheat, abuse, run around, go to church, say your prayers, etc.). Intent can determine degree but generally one can't say "I cheated on my wife but I didn't mean to I was in a bad situation, etc." and be moral.

I do not see how extreme couponers are lying, cheating, or stealing; I do not see how they are not consistent (integrity);

I agree that this is something that won't keep someone out of the Terrestrial Kingdom. In the gospel we can focus on things that are not bad or focus on things that are celestial. My questions pertain to a higher than just "not being bad" view. Others on this thread have interpreted it as a 'being bad' question, that was not the intent. The intent of my question pertains to a higher level of morality, I stated that on several posts in the form of "LDS standards". I think treating people as one would treat themselves and showing them love requires being aware of what other people's intentions are, especially in business transactions. This was never a discussion of, is it 'legal under the law, or are they using it against the fine print'.

I guess I assumed it was common knowledge that the purpose of coupons is to promote sales, awareness and even profit. For those that are not convinced of that fact, let me share with you various descriptions found off the internet in various locations (can't believe I am having to prove this...):

"Purpose of coupons

Coupons are often used to encourage new buyers to purchase an existing item. This helps increase sales of that item. The similar effect applies to the purchase of new items. For example, new items introduced to the market sometimes sell for a certain percentage off (i.e. 50% off) of the regular price in order to encourage awareness of a product and to spark interest in that product. This is true for a new service or business introduced in an area as well."

"Reasons to Use Coupons

As coupons continue to be an inexpensive form of marketing, nearly half of all retailers reported offering consumers some form of bonus coupon program. This means your competitors are probably utilizing coupons in their marketing plan and maybe should you too. Other reasons to use coupons include:

• To Increase Number of New Customers

• To Increase Sales of a Specific Product

• To Increase Branding & Awareness

• To Reward Current Customers

• To Entice Return of Former Customers

• To Create An Opportunity to Up-sell a More Profitable Product

• Highly Measurable Form of Marketing

Coupons should motivate the consumer to not only purchase the product but to take notice of the brand. A well-designed coupon offer focusing on one particular product or service can generate a short-term boost in traffic to most retailers. While only a small portion of coupons may actually be redeemed, establishing brand awareness is one of the long-lasting effects of a coupon promotion."

"The 2005 Supermarket News survey indicates that there

are three main reasons why marketers have a taste for

couponing. Among those who feel couponing is effective:

• 41% say they feel this way because couponing increases

brand awareness

• 56% report that couponing boosts retailer support

• 85% say couponing encourages product trial

To get the maximum effect, some marketers are using a

recipe for coupon promotions with ingredients that help them

achieve all three objectives in a single event: increased

brand awareness, retailer tie-in merchandising, and motivation

of consumer purchases."

"COUPON OBJECTIVES. Coupons may be issued to serve a variety of different strategic marketing objectives. One use is to encourage consumers to try new products; coupons have historically been fairly efficient at getting consumers to try new products by reducing the risk of trying something new. Coupons are also issued to convert trial users into regular customers, such as when a product sample includes a cents-off coupon. In addition, coupons can be used to convince consumers to make purchases of new sizes, flavors, or forms of an established product.

Other objectives served by issuing coupons include building retail distribution and support, moving out-of-balance inventories, targeting different markets, cushioning price increases, and enhancing other promotional efforts with coupon add-ons. Coupons are frequently used by manufacturers because of competitive pressure. When used offensively against the competition, coupons are issued to get users of a competitive product to try a new brand. When used defensively, manufacturers provide coupons to current users to keep them from purchasing a competing brand."

I don't see saving 50 to 60% as 'extreme couponing' by the way. "Extreme couponing" is when a person is getting essentially all of their grocery store products for less than what it takes to make it (maybe closer to 95% savings or more) and therefore there is a monetary loss associated to it without any hope for the store or the manufacturer to regain that loss from that person. I am not taking about the occasional couponer who by future purchases or other purchases or even by a few pennies from that purchase adds to the profitability of the company.

Knowing that the above purposes are the reasons companies make coupons, the person that says I am going to take but not participate in the real reason the company is making the coupon in the first place is not loving their neighbor as themselves. They are saying, I am going to get mine but stick it to someone else. They are just thinking about what is in it for me. "Honesty" may not be the best word to use, maybe "Celestial" or "Christlike" works better for you, just thought it was a word that would be more encompassing. This is very much an intent thing. If the person goes in saying to themselves I have no intention to give this company anything from me but I will take something of value, I think that is "dishonest" or at least not Christlike.

[yjacket]

I'll never forget in an Institute class our teacher made a comment about the percentage of people who were temple worthy who thought they would go to the Celestial Kingdom. I don't know if the stat. he quoted was correct, but it was shockingly low (like 30% or so). My opinion; if you are temple worthy, then you're going to the Celestial Kingdom. No need to impose more restrictions. This doesn't mean one shouldn't try and lead a more righteous life; it just means you've met the bar.

As one lives righteously they find more things they should or shouldn't do, not b/c someone tells them but b/c they feel that way. That is all well and good, if you feel you personally shouldn't extreme coupon, great. I have a big problem with others who have gotten to that point trying to enforce their personal beliefs and prejudices on others and/or condemning them. On extreme couponing, I will probably never subscript to your belief. While I'm not an economist; I have studied economic law quite extensively (it's a hobby), for me it has nothing to do with morality or feelings it is pure and simple business.

I or my wife may not extreme coupon to 90% savings (doubtful if they can consistently achieve that anyways!) but I don't condemn those who do. I have better things to do with my time; but if I'm unemployed or on a much tighter budget with more time I can certainly see the value of doing so. It is not my place to judge their intent. The fact they are doing it abiding by the rules (if they weren't abiding by the rules the stores would stop them!) tells me they have intent enough. They have spent countless hours obtaining many skills valuable in jobs (paying attention to detail, budgeting, etc), and I have the right to sit on my throne and condemn them? Seems a little bit like looking beyond the mark.

" "Extreme couponing" is when a person is getting essentially all of their grocery store products for less than what it takes to make it (maybe closer to 95% savings or more) and therefore there is a monetary loss associated to it without any hope for the store or the manufacturer to regain that loss from' that person."

This is so completely fallacious. I know for some this is an extremely hard concept to grasp but the amount of money it costs to produce something is irrelevant to what is sells for-they are sunk costs. If the costs to produce are more than what it sells for, it tells the company to stop producing x. If the costs to produce are lower, it tells the company to produce more of x.

Companies make business decisions thousands of times over; if they lose more than they like on coupons them will make less coupons-plain and simple. Whether extreme couponers are using them or regular coupon users it doesn't matter.

"Knowing that the above purposes are the reasons companies make coupons, the person that says I am going to take but not participate in the real reason the company is making the coupon in the first place is not loving their neighbor as themselves. They are saying, I am going to get mine but stick it to someone else."

How do you know their intent? How do you know that is their thought process?

Again, the root concern seems more based on the idea that someone else is "abusing" the system making it "unfair" for the rest. The problem is "abusing" and "unfair" are subjective terms. You might think they are being abusive; but they think they are not being abusive (who is to say who is right?). So again rather than worry about whether the neighbor is being abusive, their intent, etc. we should concentrate on ourselves.

This strikes me as a real problem in our society. "I don't agree with what you are doing, ergo you are evil and wrong." IMO, if you can't find it in the scriptures or spoken by a modern prophet it is personal opinion/revelation. Application to others is a very slippery slope. That is what working out our own salvation is all about, it's a personal path taking the guidelines we've been given and going from there. Once everyone is working on their own path instead of worrying so much about everyone else we'll all get there a lot quicker.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Companies make business decisions thousands of times over; if they lose more than they like on coupons them will make less coupons-plain and simple. Whether extreme couponers are using them or regular coupon users it doesn't matter.

"Knowing that the above purposes are the reasons companies make coupons, the person that says I am going to take but not participate in the real reason the company is making the coupon in the first place is not loving their neighbor as themselves. They are saying, I am going to get mine but stick it to someone else."

How do you know their intent? How do you know that is their thought process?

Again, the root concern seems more based on the idea that someone else is "abusing" the system making it "unfair" for the rest. The problem is "abusing" and "unfair" are subjective terms. You might think they are being abusive; but they think they are not being abusive (who is to say who is right?). So again rather than worry about whether the neighbor is being abusive, their intent, etc. we should concentrate on ourselves.

This strikes me as a real problem in our society. "I don't agree with what you are doing, ergo you are evil and wrong." IMO, if you can't find it in the scriptures or spoken by a modern prophet it is personal opinion/revelation. Application to others is a very slippery slope. That is what working out our own salvation is all about, it's a personal path taking the guidelines we've been given and going from there. Once everyone is working on their own path instead of worrying so much about everyone else we'll all get there a lot quicker.

Companies don't overall lose money on the process because there is advertising value to the coupon. This is how people who do this justify their actions, someone else flips the bill. That whole "If the company was losing money they would stop" is the concept that allows a person doing this to forget how they are ignoring the purpose of coupons and suggest in their mind that it is just a handout. Being honest in all our dealings is something we have been asked to do, this is not a trivial thing. It is spoken by a modern prophet, I have given it in quotes in this thread.

Why are you assuming anyone is worried about another person's path? Why are you exaggerating my comments to "evil"?

This whole forum is about questions pertaining to one's own personal path to salvation. If you are saying we are not allowed to talk about personal path questions that affect us in the setting of LDS gospel then 90% of the threads in this forum have to be deleted. That is a ridiculous statement. That is the purpose of this forum is to discuss how the LDS gospel is applied to our modern lives and to help us make those personal decisions. You are making up this idea that I am worried that other people are abusing the system. As it has come up amongst my friends and even a family member suggest I do this, I have thought about it more and posed some of the reasons why I think someone with LDS values should not participate in such activities. If you don't agree, fine, that is what this forum is for.

The focus has been on the practice of "extreme couponing" not on the people who practice it. If I start a thread on "murder" that does not automatically mean that I am judging all those who "murder". We would just be talking about the act of murder. Likewise, I am not "worrying" about those that practice extreme couponing rather talking about the moral relevance to honesty that is oftentimes, I agree as you suggested even, missed by those that practice it. Why can't I think 'out loud' about the associated higher laws to any act, greater than "well, it isn't breaking any laws" Terrestrial-type view?

[yjacket]

Sure, think out-loud no worries with that. Just you'll never get a definitive answer or the answer you want. Murder you will get a definitive answer, it's very clearly spoken of and about; one can easily condemn those who commit murder b/c it is well defined.

You're right being honest in all our dealings is something we should do, the celestial law. Now define it. I went to the dictionary looked up what honesty means compared that to extreme couponing and was told that's not good enough.

Thankfully the conversation has shifted from seemingly condemning those who extreme coupon as dishonest to celestial vs. telestial law.

The answer you want is that extreme couponing is against celestial law. That is an impossible answer to give. The best answer to give is no it is not against celestial law and as in most things in life use your own judgement-no prophets have spoken against it, no scriptures, etc. No basis exists except for our own interpretations. Now, one day they might speak on it-and at that point we'll have further clarity. The only firm fixed Celestial laws we know of are temple recommend questions and temple covenants; and most of those are extremely personal!

If you believe you shouldn't do it, then fine come out and say it- I personally believe I should not extreme coupon. If your friends/family are non-members I would shy away from "because I'm LDS I don't extreme coupon". In that case you are using the church as cover for personal beliefs that the church may or may not support. A simple "based on my personal understanding of scripture, belief in Jesus Christ, and an attempt to live my life in harmony with His teachings" I do not extreme coupon.

Unfortunately, many times in the Church we think we have exclusivity on being right. Nope, we have authority. You very well could find many other non-LDS people, Christian or Muslim or others who believe extreme couponing is wrong.

For me personally, for example I don't drink hardly any soft drinks or drinks that have caffeine. Does the Word of Wisdom tell me not to? No, is it part of the temple interview? No. Can I drink caffeinated drinks and still go to the Celestial kingdom-sure. However, as I try to live my life, I personally have realized that in the spirit of the word of wisdom soft drinks are bad for me, so 99.9% of the time I don't drink any soft drinks. But, that is a personal decision that is not binding on anyone else. I completely understand those in the church who may think otherwise. And it is something I have come to after study, thought, and personal growth.

So sure, ask away speak "out loud", just recognize you won't get a good answer or the answer you want to hear. And you can't and won't be able to convince others in the LDS church of that personal opinion. That answer will only come from much personal study, personal revelation and the Spirit.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Sure, think out-loud no worries with that. Just you'll never get a definitive answer or the answer you want. Murder you will get a definitive answer, it's very clearly spoken of and about; one can easily condemn those who commit murder b/c it is well defined.

You're right being honest in all our dealings is something we should do, the celestial law. Now define it. I went to the dictionary looked up what honesty means compared that to extreme couponing and was told that's not good enough.

Thankfully the conversation has shifted from seemingly condemning those who extreme coupon as dishonest to celestial vs. telestial law.

The answer you want is that extreme couponing is against celestial law. That is an impossible answer to give. The best answer to give is no it is not against celestial law and as in most things in life use your own judgement-no prophets have spoken against it, no scriptures, etc. No basis exists except for our own interpretations. Now, one day they might speak on it-and at that point we'll have further clarity. The only firm fixed Celestial laws we know of are temple recommend questions and temple covenants; and most of those are extremely personal!

If you believe you shouldn't do it, then fine come out and say it- I personally believe I should not extreme coupon. If your friends/family are non-members I would shy away from "because I'm LDS I don't extreme coupon". In that case you are using the church as cover for personal beliefs that the church may or may not support. A simple "based on my personal understanding of scripture, belief in Jesus Christ, and an attempt to live my life in harmony with His teachings" I do not extreme coupon.

Unfortunately, many times in the Church we think we have exclusivity on being right. Nope, we have authority. You very well could find many other non-LDS people, Christian or Muslim or others who believe extreme couponing is wrong.

For me personally, for example I don't drink hardly any soft drinks or drinks that have caffeine. Does the Word of Wisdom tell me not to? No, is it part of the temple interview? No. Can I drink caffeinated drinks and still go to the Celestial kingdom-sure. However, as I try to live my life, I personally have realized that in the spirit of the word of wisdom soft drinks are bad for me, so 99.9% of the time I don't drink any soft drinks. But, that is a personal decision that is not binding on anyone else. I completely understand those in the church who may think otherwise. And it is something I have come to after study, thought, and personal growth.

So sure, ask away speak "out loud", just recognize you won't get a good answer or the answer you want to hear. And you can't and won't be able to convince others in the LDS church of that personal opinion. That answer will only come from much personal study, personal revelation and the Spirit.

If you don't like a forum type discussion, then why are you participating in it?

I have had many things answered by discussing various topics with the good people of this forum. The spirit can confirm the truth, as well.

[unixknight]

I know I'm coming a bit late to the party but I have 2 cents jingling around in my mental pocket I'd like to toss in.

By hobby, I'm a wargamer. I play wargames, I read wargaming books, I paint wargaming miniatures. It's sort of our family activity. If we were any good at having family home evening in anything like an organized way, we'd probably do it by finding a way to simulate some of the battles from the BoM on a wargaming table.

So what has that got to do with this discussion?

Well, the types of wargames I play tend to have VERY complex rules. The rules also tend to be drawn from different source books with different authors who phrase things differently or use a different style. A type of rules debate that frequently pops up on wargaming web forums is the question of RAI (Rules as Intended) vs RAW (Rules as Written). It's a side effect of having a system of rules so complex that the exact wording of a rule may be vague enough that, taken literally it could mean one thing while read in the spirit of other similar rules it could mean something entirely different. I've often found that those who argue most heavily in favor of RAW tend to be those trying to take advantage of poor or unclear wording in order to gain some kind of benefit in the game. People who adhere to RAI are generally more likely to try and find the meaning behind the rules rather than use the letter of the rule to break the spirit of the rule.

So when I see a discussion like this one it always reminds me of a classic RAI vs RAW discussion. RAW says extreme couponing is fine, since no law is broken, and the person doing it isn't hiding anything. On the other hand, coupons are meant to attract new customers by offering small discounts, not sell products on a regular basis for pennies on the dollar. If EVERYBODY did it, the stores would soon go out of business.

But that isn't why I wouldn't do it.

I've seen shows on TV profiling people who really go extreme on the couponing. I mean a mom who went to the grocery store and left with well over $200 worth of groceries that she'd paid something like $35 for. The amount time she spent clipping and saving coupons was enormous. So it's a balancing act. How much money is my time worth? Is it worth me sitting at a table for 30 hours a week clipping coupons to save $165 on my grocery bill?

Each person has to answer that question for his or her self.