Mormon Guide to Starbucks

[pam]

We have made an edit to our original article:

 

http://lds.net/blog/buzz/mormons-guide-starbucks/

 

Our comment appears at the end of the article and states:

 

Update Tuesday May 20 12:25pm: There has been some controversy concerning the accuracy of this article. We stand by the statements made. Our facts were verified by the Supervisor of Corporate Customer Relations at Starbucks Headquarters in New Mexico. There is no coffee in the official recipes of any of the drinks listed in this article. If coffee is added, it is the mistake of the barista. We reaffirm our earlier advice to always request no coffee to ensure there are no mistakes.

[Leah]

The "default" base to the Starbucks hot chocolate is mocha syrup.  But, you can order the hot chocolate with chocolate sauce instead of mocha syrup.  You just need to tell the person making it.

I would think that most people would have no clue about this. People think that when they order hot chocolate, they get......chocolate.

[Leah]

Okay this is from a manager at Starbucks Corp.  If it states there is caffeine in the drink, it contains coffee.  No caffeine is coffee free.

 

We will be making an edit to the article with clarification on this.

 

 

*edit*  Please refer now to our official statement regarding this which can be found on the article itself:

 

http://lds.net/blog/buzz/mormons-guide-starbucks/

 

Update Tuesday May 20 12:25pm: There has been some controversy concerning the accuracy of this article. We stand by the statements made. Our facts were verified by the Supervisor of Corporate Customer Relations at Starbucks Headquarters in New Mexico. There is no coffee in the official recipes of any of the drinks listed in this article. If coffee is added, it is the mistake of the barista. We reaffirm our earlier advice to always request no coffee to ensure there are no mistakes.

This makes me even more skeptical of your sources.

Chocolate contains caffeine. Any drink with chocolate is going to contain caffeine. There is enough caffeine in chocolate that people with certain health conditions are cautioned against consuming it. So Starbucks stating that any/all caffeine in their drinks is derived from coffee is simply not accurate.

[pam]

This makes me even more skeptical of your sources.

Chocolate contains caffeine. Any drink with chocolate is going to contain caffeine. There is enough caffeine in chocolate that people with certain health conditions are cautioned against consuming it. So Starbucks stating that any/all caffeine in their drinks is derived from coffee is simply not accurate.

The issue is whether they contain coffee not caffeine.  The drinks listed in the article do not contain coffee.

 

We know that chocolate does contain some amounts of caffeine.

[Guest]

I would think that most people would have no clue about this. People think that when they order hot chocolate, they get......chocolate.

 

Yes.  They get chocolate.... That's what mocha is - chocolate and coffee.  It is Starbucks.  A coffee shop.  It is not unreasonable to serve hot chocolate using mocha flavor instead of just plain chocolate.

[pam]

Per the information we received from the supervisor in the PR department at Starbucks Corporate, there is no coffee in the mocha syrup that they use for the hot chocolate. This was something that was specifically asked when a call was made to them.

 

It is a flavoring but does not contain coffee.

[Guest]

Per the information we received from the supervisor in the PR department at Starbucks Corporate, there is no coffee in the mocha syrup that they use for the hot chocolate. This was something that was specifically asked when a call was made to them.

 

It is a flavoring but does not contain coffee.

 

I guess that settles that.

 

It gives rise to more questions... how do you make coffee flavor without the coffee?  Because that would be like, super awesome if I can find that recipe.

[Lakumi]

I guess that settles that.

 

It gives rise to more questions... how do you make coffee flavor without the coffee?  Because that would be like, super awesome if I can find that recipe.

chemicals, if they can make faux meat I am sure they can make faux coffee (I mean they do, though I don't think they sell nettle and dandelion coffee in stores, not in normal stores anyway)

[Dravin]

I guess that settles that.

 

It gives rise to more questions... how do you make coffee flavor without the coffee?  Because that would be like, super awesome if I can find that recipe.

 

Dark roasted barely yields dark bitter roasted flavors akin to coffee. If you don't want to make your own you can just get your hands on some Pero or other similar product.

[Leah]

Yes.  They get chocolate.... That's what mocha is - chocolate and coffee.  It is Starbucks.  A coffee shop.  It is not unreasonable to serve hot chocolate using mocha flavor instead of just plain chocolate.

Most people would not expect coffee to be part of their hot chocolate no matter where they ordered it, even in a coffee shop. It would be viewed as one of the non-coffee items there.

[Leah]

Dark roasted barely yields dark bitter roasted flavors akin to coffee. If you don't want to make your own you can just get your hands on some Pero or other similar product.

I've tried several different brands and have shared with co-workers looking for a coffee alternative. They were appreciative to the point that they drank up all my supply!

[Leah]

The issue is whether they contain coffee not caffeine.  The drinks listed in the article do not contain coffee.

 

We know that chocolate does contain some amounts of caffeine.

I know what the issue is.

The earlier statement was that any drink at Starbucks that contained caffeine contained coffee.. According to you, that is Starbucks' statement.

I am saying that it is not an accurate statement as chocolate drinks - with NO coffee in them - would also contain caffeine. So the presence of caffeine does not necessarily mean that coffee is also present. Coffee is not the only source of caffeine. Not even at Starbucks. But if Starbucks' party line is that any drink served by them that contains caffeine must therefore contain coffee (does that also mean that there is coffee in the tea drinks because - according to SB - if caffeine is present, it comes from coffee), then why should I trust any information from them? Lie.....the hot chocolate is actually hot chocolate and not a coffee drink.

I don't understand why you're being so defensive about this. Do you own stock in Starbucks? Are you plugging them for some reason?

[pam]

I know what the issue is.

The earlier statement was that any drink at Starbucks that contained caffeine contained coffee.. According to you, that is Starbucks' statement.

I am saying that it is not an accurate statement as chocolate drinks - with NO coffee in them - would also contain caffeine. So the presence of caffeine does not necessarily mean that coffee is also present. Coffee is not the only source of caffeine. Not even at Starbucks. But if Starbucks' party line is that any drink served by them that contains caffeine must therefore contain coffee (does that also mean that there is coffee in the tea drinks because - according to SB - if caffeine is present, it comes from coffee), then why should I trust any information from them? Lie.....the hot chocolate is actually hot chocolate and not a coffee drink.

I don't understand why you're being so defensive about this. Do you own stock in Starbucks? Are you plugging them for some reason?

 

Which is also why I did a final official statement after we received more information and clarification.

 

I also updated post #15 to reflect tis as well.

 

Once the question about caffeine came up in hot chocolate we had called back to do some more clarification.

 

We are talking about the drinks mentioned in the article.  That is what we verified.  None of those drink contain coffee.

 

I work for the organization that created and published this article.  Much research went into the writing of it.  When questions started appearing regarding the accuracy we wanted to make sure that our original research was correct.  Therefore much time was spent today re-verifying the information.

 

So no I don't own stock in Starbucks nor am I making a plug for them.  I am only defending the information stated in the article and stand we took on this article.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

We're calling Starbucks back asking about the hot chocolate.  It does say it's made with mocha syrup.

 

As far as I know ALL chocolate contains caffeine. 

 

OOPs disregard, I posted this before finishing the whole thread.  :)

[Maureen]

http://mormonhub.com/blog/life/life-hacks/food/starbucks-for-mormons/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=LDS.net&utm_content=The Mormon Guide to Starbucks

This old article popped up on my Facebook Timeline and I found, as a non-Mormon, some of the comments a little funny. IMO, all of this discussion regarding the WoW could be put to rest by just getting rid of the WoW. Let the LDS members decide for themselves what is good for them in substance and quantity. This way these silly arguments about what the WoW really means could end.

For one thing, this idea that coffee and tea are evil and any establishment that serves them is evil is ridiculous. Coffee and Tea are beverages that many people consume and these people are a mixture of good and bad and in between. There are a variety of people that also drink water, who can be put in the good and bad category, but that does not make water evil. So this idea of "the appearance of evil" when it comes to places like Starbucks is just silly, IMO.

For an example of how this sounds crazy to non-Mormons here's a hypothetical situation: Some protestant religions see "dancing" as evil - but Mormons do not, because they dance. They hold dances in their Cultural Halls (in their meetinghouses) for youth and adults. If a person of a religion who believed dancing was evil were to enter a Mormon meetinghouse when a dance was taking place; would you as a Mormon consider that non-Mormon person to be giving the "appearance of evil" just by being there? Would you think that your own meetinghouse was evil because of a dance taking place? Of course not.

Dancing is not evil, but there are those who choose to not partake because of their beliefs. Coffee and Tea are not evil, but there are those who choose not to partake, because of belief. Pork is not evil (and neither are the stores that sell pork) but there are those that choose not to partake because of belief.

I really hope that sometime in the future, your leaders will realize that "it is not meet I should command in all things....men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.." (D&C 58:26-27)

M.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Maureen

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

http://mormonhub.com/blog/life/life-hacks/food/starbucks-for-mormons/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=LDS.net&utm_content=The Mormon Guide to Starbucks

This old article popped up on my Facebook Timeline and I found, as a non-Mormon, some of the comments a little funny. IMO, all of this discussion regarding the WoW could be put to rest by just getting rid of the WoW. Let the LDS members decide for themselves what is good for them in substance and quantity. This way these silly arguments about what the WoW really means could end.

For one thing, this idea that coffee and tea are evil and any establishment that serves them is evil is ridiculous. Coffee and Tea are beverages that many people consume and these people are a mixture of good and bad and in between. There are a variety of people that also drink water, who can be put in the good and bad category, but that does not make water evil. So this idea of "the appearance of evil" when it comes to places like Starbucks is just silly, IMO.

For an example of how this sounds crazy to non-Mormons here's a hypothetical situation: Some protestant religions see "dancing" as evil - but Mormons do not, because they dance. They hold dances in their Cultural Halls (in their meetinghouses) for youth and adults. If a person of a religion who believed dancing was evil were to enter a Mormon meetinghouse when a dance was taking place; would you as a Mormon consider that non-Mormon person to be giving the "appearance of evil" just by being there? Would you think that your own meetinghouse was evil because of a dance taking place? Of course not.

Dancing is not evil, but there are those who choose to not partake because of their beliefs. Coffee and Tea are not evil, but there are those who choose not to partake, because of belief. Pork is not evil (and neither are the stores that sell pork) but there are those that choose not partake because of belief.

I really hope that sometime in the future, your leaders will realize that "it is not meet I should command in all things....men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.." (D&C 58:26-27)

M.

Have you seen anyone post on this site that coffee and tea are "evil"?  I haven't.  And I'd sincerely disagree with those that would.

BTW, I don't believe many Jews would say pork is "evil" either.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Guest

[Maureen]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Have you seen anyone post on this site that coffee and tea are "evil"?  I haven't.  And I'd sincerely disagree with those that would.

BTW, I don't believe many Jews would say pork is "evil" either.

Over the many years of posts on this subject, probably. The article's comments have people posting this exact thing.

M.

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I really hope that sometime in the future, your leaders will realize that "it is not meet I should command in all things....men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.." (D&C 58:26-27)

Important counsel from a wise and completely impartial source, one to which our leaders are sure to listen. The Church is guided by revelation from Jesus Christ and Maureen's valuable input. Always appreciated when you tell us what we believe and how we should interpret our scriptures, Maureen. Thanks so much for your service.

[Maureen]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Important counsel from a wise and completely impartial source, one to which our leaders are sure to listen. The Church is guided by revelation from Jesus Christ and Maureen's valuable input. Always appreciated when you tell us what we believe and how we should interpret our scriptures, Maureen. Thanks so much for your service.

You're welcome Vort, anytime.

M.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Over the many years of posts on this subject, probably. The article's comments have people posting this exact thing.

M.

"Probably"... hmm.

I think you might want to re-read those comments.  There was a lot of tongue-in-cheek going on.  And most of the "evil" was calling Starbucks Corporation evil, not coffee.  And I'd agree with that... semi-seriously.

[Maureen]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

"Probably"... hmm.

I think you might want to re-read those comments.  There was a lot of tongue-in-cheek going on.  And most of the "evil" was calling Starbucks Corporation evil, not coffee.  And I'd agree with that... semi-seriously.

But why think that the Starbucks Corporation is evil? Because they sell coffee and tea and those who endorse such an establishment can be seen as promoting "evil" themselves, or at least "the appearance of evil".

M.

[NeuroTypical]

I've taught the Sunday School Gospel Principles on the Word of Wisdom.  One rebellious and barely-active teen girl listened to the lesson and finally blurted out "so since when is coffee bad?"  I replied that nobody was calling coffee or tea 'bad', and went over the specific wording in both scripture and lesson material.  The lesson absolutely took a strong moral stand against alcohol, quoting a good old-fashioned fire-and-brimstone sermon from 1942:

Quote

 The First Presidency has taught that strong drink often brings cruelty, poverty, disease, and plague into the home. It often is a cause of dishonesty, loss of chastity, and loss of good judgment. It is a curse to all who drink it.

The lesson also mentions "Expectant mothers who drink can cause physical and mental damage to their children. Many automobile accidents are caused each year by people who drink alcohol."

 

But when talking about coffee, a more measured message:

Quote

The Lord also counsels us against the use of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9). Church leaders have said that this means coffee and tea, which contain harmful substances. We should avoid all drinks that contain harmful substances.

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Maureen said:

But why think that the Starbucks Corporation is evil? Because they sell coffee and tea and those who endorse such an establishment can be seen as promoting "evil" themselves, or at least "the appearance of evil".

M.

No, because they are an evil corporation.  We don't say Dunkin Donuts is evil.  We don't say the local coffee house is evil.  We don't say Denny's is evil.

And to be honest, I'm actually proud that there are a lot of Mormons who happen to be aware enough of the kinds of shenanigans that Starbucks gets into to call them evil.

BTW, a lot of people including Mormons call Wells Fargo an evil corporation.  Do they sell coffee there?

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Guest

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Maureen said:

But why think that the Starbucks Corporation is evil? Because they sell coffee and tea and those who endorse such an establishment can be seen as promoting "evil" themselves, or at least "the appearance of evil".

Behold why LDS leaders line up to hear Maureen's well-considered opinions.

[Maureen]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Behold why LDS leaders line up to hear Maureen's well-considered opinions.

What makes you sure that LDS leaders do not read MormonHub's threads and posts? I bet they have a huge folder about threads and posts you have contributed to Vort.

M.