“Our Readers Write,” Ensign, May 1972, 110
I read with great interest the well-written article “Reformed Protestantism” [February, p. 28], by Dr. Richard O. Cowan. I am surprised that the author would fail to mention one of the largest churches adhering to the Calvinistic doctrine, namely, the Baptist Church.
In the United States the Southern Baptist Convention, which has approximately twelve million members, is definitely Calvinistic in doctrine and for the most part practices the rite of close communion. The Baptists are trinitarians, and their churches are congregational in government.
Samuel C. Joplin
I just got my first look at a December issue of the Ensign and read the article “Letters to Six Talents,” by Sylva R. Henriksen. It is utterly beautiful. I wish I had a mother like her. Great magazine. Keep up the good work.
A faithful reader
(Now in prison)
When I opened my March Ensign, I was thrilled to see the return of the Relief Society writing contests. Eagerly I read the rules: “This contest is open to all Latter-day Saint women.” I was so pleased. I have always wanted to enter the short story contest! But, alas, I read further to find that the entrants must have “had at least one literary composition published or accepted for publication.”
I feel that this rule is unfair and impractical. If the contest is to be open to all Latter-day Saint women, then it should be open to all—and not just to those who have been published? Why is this rule necessary? If a young Latter-day Saint mother can’t find recognition for her talents through Relief Society, where can she? Is it possible that this rule could be eliminated in future contests so that the contest can be open to all Latter-day Saint women?
The short story contest was begun in 1942 as a part of the Relief Society centennial, and the stipulation that contestants should have previously published was made a part of the contest rules at that time to limit the number of entries so that each one could be more carefully processed. Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate that rule. But writers may at any time send their material to the Ensign for evaluation by the staff. You don’t need to wait for a contest.
I found R. Gaurth Hansen’s article “Wheat for Man—Should it Be Enriched, Restored, or Fortified?” [February, p. 40] interesting and thought-provoking, and wish to focus particular attention on one statement, as well as the author’s recommendation on the subject.
Dr. Hansen states that the synthetic vitamins B1, B2, niacin, and the element iron used to enrich white flour are identical to their natural counterparts and are physiologically useful. Whether these or any synthetic vitamins are identical to their natural counterparts is a controversial subject, but the matter of physiological usefulness may be the more important issue. Research has shown that various nutrients do not perform their roles in a vacuum: they apparently interact with each other and with individual body chemistry. Generally, when isolating a vitamin or other nutrient from its known and/or unknown partners naturally present in a foodstuff, the complementary interaction is altered, and this influences the physiological usefulness of the nutrient.
Too many factors, known or unknown, suggest that a chemist cannot duplicate the nutritional benefits of whole wheat flour products regardless of the extent to which he enriches, restores, or fortifies refined white flour.
Consideration might be given the author’s recommendation of improving current enrichment practices of white flour because the consumer generally prefers refined flour products over the more nutritious whole wheat products. However, since ideas, energies, and money are being funneled into an attempt to improve the white flour, why not use the same means to educate consumer and manufacturer to the advantages of returning to whole wheat products?
Caveat emptor appears to be the slogan of the times. Too many inferior, as well as hazardous, products are on the market. The consumer may be as guilty as the perpetrators of such products because either he is not educated to the facts, or he is too apathetic to care. It is suggested that we especially, as members of the Church, strive to educate ourselves and others, not only to white flour enrichment practices, but to any venture that affects our well-being.
Ralph E. Carmode
“Wheat for Man—Should It Be Enriched, Restored, or Fortified?” I say, “No!” It should not be enriched, restored, or fortified. We should eat it the way it comes from nature. We cannot improve on an apple as it comes from the tree, or wheat as it comes from the earth.
Brother Hansen says, “Even though the vitamins are synthetically prepared for enrichment purposes, they are identical to the so-called natural vitamins. …”
They are not identical. There is a world of difference, even though this difference may not be seen through a microscope. For one thing, man cannot create life in a test tube or in a vitamin. Life comes only from Heavenly Father, the Creator of all living things. Synthetic vitamins do not have the “life force,” and thus they act upon the cell as a drug would; they cannot build one single cell, but can only stimulate a response.
Who are we to decide that we can leave out nutrients from bread just because their value has not been “proved” by man, or we don’t know how much we need, or it is too expensive?
Muriel Jane Donaldson