For each question, answer the question completely using proper English and make sure to proofread! You must also respond to at least one other student post to receive full credit.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Chapter Five-Realizing: Civilians and the Work of Mourning
What were the similarities and differences between the North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross' views about how to mourn? Of the two clergymen, whose ideas do you agree with mostly? WHY?
Though Reverends Charles Seymour of the North and Joseph Cross of the South where located in two differing places, they held beliefs that had many similarities and differences. "At an upstate New York funeral service for Lieutenant Colonel James M. Green......reverend Charles Seymour Robinson reminded mourners that "time in a measure will help you.""(165) The reverend stated that as the months and years passed, the "first violence of a sudden affliction" would lessen.(165) "Robinson listed three sources of consolation." (165) He believed that Patriotism, for it provided a mourner the freedom to feel proud about a loved ones death in the war, others sympathy as he believed "shared mourning was easier mourning", and "the sublime hopes of the gospel" as a solace. "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and god." (165) Robinson's southern counterpart preached a little differently. He first off assured mourners that "sorrow was no sin."(165) Cross believed that acceptance of sorrow was a critical part of realizing death. He believed "grief must have a vent, or it will break the heart....It is cruel to deny one the relief of mourning when mourning is so often its own relief." (166) Like Robinson, Cross believed that Mourning is a process and he urged his congregation to trek through the guilt as they would eventually come upon relief. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson tried to ease mourners pain as he stated on day they shall be able to look back on the days of despair with calm eyes while Joseph Cross believed that one must vent out their grief before they could feel relief.
Personally, my thoughts coincide with Reverend Joseph Cross. I believe that without a vent, one usually doesn’t get over the inner pain. Venting releases boxed up emotions that cause pain when they go unshared. Although time certainly does help one feel better, venting brings about a quicker wave of relief. Time alone is not the most sufficient, as an individual would be plagued by bottled up sorrow for the extent.
The similarities between Robinson and Cross, were that they both believed in God to help ease the pain. “Like Robinson as well, Cross offered shared suffering as solace” (166). As stated, both also believe in the aid of other’s sympathy.
The differences between Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross, were that Robinson focused mainly on time, sympathy of others, and religion as relief of despair, while Cross believed in venting and releasing the feelings of anger and agony. Robinson “reminded mourners that ‘time in a measure will help you.’” (165). He believed that eventually people would ‘be able to look calmly on these days of grief.’ (165). Robinson “listed three specific sources of consolation.” (165). These were patriotism, sympathy of others, and God.
Joseph Cross began his funeral oration for General Daniel Donelson, “by assuring the mourners that sorrow was no sin.” (165). Cross felt that it was completely acceptable to vent in times of misery, that ‘there is no guilt in tears’ (165). He believed that mourning was not just acceptable, but rather encouraged, because it was “important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it.” (166). Similarly, he said; ‘Grief must have vent, or it will break the heart… It is its own relief.’ (166).
Although I agree with both, I agree with Joseph Cross more. Instead of waiting out the pain, he believed in venting it out. “Cross understood mourning as a process and promised his congregation progress through grief to some measure of recovery.” (166). Robinson simply reminded people that “God’s mercy had provided that ‘months and years’ would lessen the ‘first violence of a sudden affliction.’” (165). Robinson rarely talked about self grieving, he led people to believe in relying on others to ease the pain, while Cross believed in both self grieving, but also believed that “Sorrow calls for sympathy.” (166).
Joseph Cross and Charles Seymour Robinson were on opposite ends of the war, but both had there similarities and differences. The main similarity was that they both found a relief in God. They also believed that other's sympathy was a healing process.
Joseph Cross believed that sorrow was no sin. "It is no crime to feel our loss ... Religion does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctify it."(165-166). He the Amreican people that you must feel the "stroke"of loss. But he also warned of a limit to excess amounts of grief.
Robinson focused on the idea of time, sympathy, and religion as relief from a loss. Robinson told mourners, " God's mercy had provided that 'months and years' would lessen the 'first violence of a sudden afflication.'" (165). As CJ said Robinson listed Patriosim, sympathy, and God as specific sources of consolation.
I can understand both, but I agree with Joseph Cross more. Cross thought that mourning was important and that it should be experieneced. It seemed unreasonable, to him, to keep grif inside of you. That it would break your heart and that sorrow was no sin. Robinson believed that relying on others was nearly the only way to ease the pain. Cross believed both and thats why I find Cross's opinion to be better.
I agree with your post for many reasons. Venting is one of the most effective ways to get past a lose. Time does help but its so important to vent during that time to. It seemed like Robinson thought venting grief was unacceptable. Sorrow demands sympathy, and to deny it is painful.
Although Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross were on opposing sides of the war, they both believed that God would, as CJ pointed out, ease the pain and help cope with the idea of death. They both also believed that time would help with the agony and that shared mourning was the best way to mourn. However these two men also had differences in their views on mourning. Reverend Seymour believed that 3 specific sources would help with consolation. "'Patriotism,' he declared, 'will come into aid in mitigating the sorrow.'" Shared mourning was another source, and finally, "above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you." Cross believed strongly that "Grief must have vent, or it will break the heart." He also focused strongly on excessive mourning being criminal. "Grief was 'excessive and therefore, criminal,' he repeated, when it ignored God's purposes and consolations." Cross also included a list of warnings with his consolation; while the reverend "offered sources of comfort and help." However "both promised a gradual end to the agony of death to be achieved through the work of mourning." Although John Cross was harsher in putting it, I believe his ideas were better. For instance he believed in venting your anger and sadness rather than holding it inside of you. He also enforced the idea that sorrow was not sin. "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss."
Jordan- I completely agree with your statement “Time alone is not the most sufficient, as an individual would be plagued by bottled up sorrow for the extent." This is an excellent observation! People who keep anger and sorrow inside themselves can never move on past these feelings without venting.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross,even though on opposite sides still had very similar view points. I agree mainly with Robinson "Time in measure will help you"(165). I agree with this because time will eventually heal all wounds, metaphorically speaking. I do not believe There is a proper limit like Cross states "where then is the proper limit... excessive therefore criminal"(166). There is no end time to mourning people go thier entire lives sometime never letting go. It is always a never ending sorrow.
Cross had viewpoints saying "Religion does not destroy nature,but regulates it,does not remove sorrow , but sanctifies it"(166). To me this seems like he is saying religion controls eveything about death your faith in god will determine how long or how much u will mourn.
Robinson believed that Patroitism would help aid the sorrow. For having faith in ones country would help the death seem more important in a way. He also believed and preached about life and resurection after death. Which would help mourners because they then new that their loved one would be seen again.
These are the two separete, yet similar view points of these two great men.
Reverend Charles Seymour “offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God” (165). He believed people would “look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead, giving their lives for their country” (165) and that they would always remember those who they lost. He stressed the concept that “shared mourning… was easier mourning” (165) and believed that sympathy from others was essential to recovery. A major focus of his was the idea that the dead would rise again just as Christ did.
Joseph Cross believed that “there is no guilt in tears” (165) and that there was nothing wrong with feeling sorrow. He believed in the importance of venting and letting your feelings out. In his opinion, “Christian belief and human psychology were… deeply intertwined” (166) meaning religion made it possible for sorrow and pain to be felt. He stressed that one must not deny their pain but instead “suffer in the face of loss” (166). He believed that mourning was its own sense of relief.
Both of these men stressed the importance of human compassion. Seymour believed that group mourning helped one recovery. Cross stressed that “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel… Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load” (165). It seems that both men saw grieving as a process one must endure to recover to normal life. They realized that religion was a major factor in regaining emotional stability. Both men were devoted to lecturing and helping those in pain and showing the many ways of relieving such suffering.
I agree with both of these men. Sympathy from others tends to lighten the burden of sorrow. I also agree that grieving is a process that you endure in order to recover. I agree with Charles Seymour and his ideas on nation, time, and community. It helps to know that your loved ones will not be forgotten nor will their sacrifices, which is a concept he stressed to his listeners. Although I agree with Seymour more, I think Cross is definitely correct about letting your feelings run their course without denying them.
I agree with what you said. Time heals all wounds and eventually the pain fades. I also agree with what you said about how there "is no end time to mourning" and how some things one can never let go. Cross' quote saying there is a certain point where you should stop mourning is fairly insensitive. Saying such a thing is nothing compared to the action of doing so. I agree that some things you can't help but mourn about for long periods of time as you pointed out. Great argument.
North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross had similarities and differences in their views about how to mourn. Seymour view was based on time, and sympathy. He said that “time in a measure will help you.”(165). He also said that “God’s mercy had provided that ‘months and years’ would lessen the ‘first violence of a sudden affliction.’”(165). He then listed the three specific sources of consolation. He said “Patriotism” was first; the second would be sympathy of others, and a third and “above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you.”(165). For Cross “He began by assuring the mourners that sorrow was no sin.”(165). He had examples of past history like Abraham for Sarah, Joseph for Jacob, and David for Jonathan. He believed that sorrow was a critical part of realizing death. Like Robinson, Cross understood mourning as a process and promised his congregation. Cross often shared suffering as solace: “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel… Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.”(166)
I personally agree more with Cross than I do with Robinson. I agree with venting out the pain is better than waiting out the pain. I also agree that sorrow is not a sin, and that sorrow calls for sympathy. I agree also with that compassion is better than counsel. I believe like Cross that sorrow was a critical part of realizing death. That is why I agree with Joseph Cross more than I agree with Charles Seymour.
I agree with what you said on your post. I agree with what you said for the differences between North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross' views about how to mourn. I like how you said that Robinson focused mainly on time, sympathy of others, and religion as relief of despair, while Cross believed in venting and releasing the feelings of anger and agony. The similarities were also very good. I also agree with your pick to agree more with Cross than Robinson. That was a good post
Despite the fact that Reverend Charles Seymour of the North, and Joseph Cross of the South were situated on opposing sides during the Civil War, their views concerning the act of mourning contained many similarities. Both men believed firmly in the idea of “mourning as a process.” (166). The concept that time was a critical component in healing the "first violence of a sudden affliction" was a staple of both men’s beliefs. Seymour and Cross also considered the act of mourning a necessity. Cross stated, “It is cruel to deny one the relief of mourning when mourning is so often its own relief.” (166). Lastly, both Cross and Seymour “offered shared suffering as solace.” (166). They maintained that “Compassion is better than council…Sympathy divides the sorrow and, leaves but half the load.” However, an important difference is prevalent in Charles and Joseph’s views about mourning. Charles Seymour was an advocate of “three specific sources for consolation.” (165). These included patriotism, sympathy for others, and hope in the gospel. Joseph Cross made no specific mention of any of these aspects in his teachings about the proper way to mourn.
Of the two clergymen, I agree with mostly with Joseph Cross. This is because he was a strong supporter of the idea that sorrow was “criminal when it obscured the awareness of remaining mercies.” (166). I agree that you can only mourn for so long, and need to keep the other positive aspects of your life in perspective. No true healing can occur if one gives themselves up completely to the process of mourning.
Mourning was something that both sides had done but, both had different views on how to mourn for the fallen soldiers. Reverend Charles Seymour of the north, and the south’s Joseph Cross both had similarities and differences when it came to the time for mourning. Both of these men had considered mourning a necessity. Both thought that mourning was also a process, so the mourner would heal over a period of time. There was one big difference between the two reverends; Charles Seymour was an advocate for sources of consolation. These sources were, patriotism, having sympathy for others, and hope in the gospel. On the other hand, Joseph Cross had not mentioned anything about these sources of consolation in his teachings about how to mourn. Out of the two reverends, I agree with reverend Joseph Cross. Even though his teaching might had been harsher than Seymour’s, Cross’s ideas were a little better and more thought out. Cross had believed to let all of your anger and sadness out than rather to hold it inside of you for a very long time. He had also enforced the idea that sorrow wasn’t a sin.
I agree with Jordan. That overall Joseph Cross’s teachings were better and found more helpful than Seymour’s teachings. The mourner’s pain can’t be held up inside forever, so it is better to let it out sooner than later
Reverend Charles Seymour and the south's Joseph Cross were very similar and vvery different in many various ways, despite their place geographically in the country. At Lieutenent Colonel James M. Green's funeral, Seymour stated," time in measure will not help you. Months and years would lessen the first violence of a sudden afflicion. He also masde clear that sharing mourning would be easier mourning. These remarks are vary similar to Joseph Cross at the funeral service for General Daniel Donelson. "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss...Religion does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it. Both of these men in these instances are trying to comfort the mourners by telling them that it is normal for death to occer and there are ways to overcome the pain of death. Yet they are different in some ways mostly because of what was going on in the north compared to the south. Cross for example used many biblical relations to speak at funerals. At this time in the south, southerners were starting to question religion and ig they dont win the war, God will have had no reason to let all those men die. So Cross to an aproach that may have helped re-install religion in the south. This is why Richard Seymour and Joseph Cross are similar in some ways, yet different in others.
hank hammond I forgot to say which one i agreed with more. Sorry everybody. I like Joseph Crosse's aproach to mourning better because he used more of the bible and this helped re-ensure southerners of God and how he is still with them in these hard times.
I agree with you that Cross was a more qualified teacher about mourning during the civil war. He had better thought out ideals on how to approach. Yet you said that Cross did not acknowledge the gospel in his teachings. The book said that he constantly made reference to Abraham, John, and many other biblical characters. This is why I believe you are on the right path with Cross, yet not completely well-informed.
The two clergymen had many similarities and differences of how to mourn. A similarity that both Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross believed was that mourning was a process and it took time to recover. Also, the two men offered suffering as solace, "Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel...Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the sorrow." (166). Some differences were Seymour Robinson reminded mourners that "time in a measure will help you." (165). He said that the more time you give to grieving, the better you will be. But Cross believed differently, he said that once you accept your sorrows and realize death, you will be able to overcome mourning. Joseph Cross also said that "excessive sorrow" was not good, and that you should not mourn for excessive amounts of time. Another difference is that Joseph Cross believed that "the bereaved must work to alleviate their grief, attending to the solaces of friendship and religion." (165). Where as Robinson offered "sources of comfort and help." (165).
I personally agree with Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson because he offered time to those who need more time to recover. Also, Robinson offered comfort and help to any person who needs it. I like that he gives time, because it is very hard to go through losing someone whom you love so much. Another reason why I agree with Charles Seymour’s views more is because he spoke to his listeners about the three specific sources of consolation. “Patriotism, shared mourning, and hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you.” (165). I appreciate his words for those who mourned over their loved ones back then, and that’s why I agree with Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson.
The North's Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross had many ideas about how to mourn. They both agreed that time would lessen the grief and "by and by be able to look calmly upon these days of grief."(165) Seymour believed everyone would still feel for their loss and "always remember the departed with affection."(165) He also said that Patriotism, sympathy for others, and "the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you."(165)
Charles Seymour Robinson had many good points about mourning but I believe Joseph Cross had some better ideas. "Christian faith and human psychology were in his view."(166) He comforted his mourners by saying that "sorrow was no sin."(165) He stated that it was no crime to feel for a loss. He encouraged people to mourn because "grief must have vent, or it will break the heart."(166) I believe that the best thing he said, was not to mourn too much. He said that sorrow was "criminal when it obscured the awareness of remaining mercies.” They both had great points and helped many people, but I agree with Cross more.
I agree with you. I believe Cross made better points in mourning. It is better to vent out your pain rather than wait for it to go away. You said, "He had examples of past history like Abraham for Sarah, Joseph for Jacob, and David for Jonathan," which is great because it allows people to trust him more. He ensured his mourners that sorrow was not a sin and it helped. He is smart because although people need to mourn, they need to control it. While mourning for their loved ones they can't let it take over their lives and they need to stay aware to "remaining mercies."
Robinson and Cross had differing opinions on the correct way to mourn. Robinson felt that time would heal the pain of losing loved ones. He believed in three sources that would console mourners. The first source was patriotism. He felt that in time, people would look back at the good that came out of the war, and the feeling of grief would not be as strong. Pride would overcome sorrow. The second source Robinson believed in was sympathy of others. This gave people the idea that they had people there to take care of them and help get through the pain. Robinson’s last source had to do with faith. He believed that God could heal all grief.
Cross presented a different way to mourn. He believed that being able to vent and be open about one’s sorrow was the way to heal. He said that it was not a sin to be sorrowful. Mourning was good in his eyes because when you lose someone, it is healthy to suffer. However, Cross agreed with Robinson that you need sympathy of others to deal with the pain. He also thought that it was good to turn to God.
I tend to agree more with Robinson’s idea of how to mourn. I think he has it completely right with his three sources to console mourners. Although I think that Cross’s idea of venting could be more efficient for some people, I am a believer that time will heal. In my experience, with the sympathy of others and faith, everything gets better in time.
You make a very good point about Cross’s idea of mourning, but I disagree with you. I feel that with Robinson’s view, you are not really keeping your emotions inside of you. You are simply letting them out in a calmer way. It is natural to be angry and need to vent when you are in pain, but I think Robinson displays a better way of doing this.
Despite the fact that Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson (North) and Joseph Cross (South) were on opposing sides of the Civil War, their perspectives on the process of mourning were similar in some ways, yet different. Both of the clergymen’s ideals were based on religious references and the prospect of God.
Charles Seymour Robinson focused his teachings about the properties of mourning mainly on the spiritual idea that “time heals all wounds.” In his teachings, he discussed his three specific sources of consultation. First, he wanted people to realize the profound importance of each death and its value toward their country. Second, he knew that the mourning would be easier if it was shared with others and others would feel the same way. Finally, he wanted people to know that the lost loved one was in a better place away from war and violence. With these simple notes in mind, he made it easier for someone to ease one’s passing.
Joseph Cross based most of his teachings upon the Christian faith and morals found in the Bible. “There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss.” (165) Religion, he believed, was one of the key aspects that were used to subsidize the effect of mourning. “Acceptance of sorrow, he recognized, was a critical part of realizing death.” (166) He also believed that one cannot fully feel relief without disposing of grief.
I personally would have to agree with Joseph Cross’ ideas more than Robinsons. I would have to agree with his idea that grief is the only thing that holds a person back from finding relief. The quicker a person lets go of the deceased, the faster they will feel solace. Even though I agreed with Cross more than Robinson, I still believe that both had something to offer the sorrowful people about the terms of relief and letting go.
I agree with you about how Joseph Cross’ ideas about mourning were better. He dealt more with the religious side of grief and mourning. Due to the strong religious influence of that time period, his ideas were taken to more than Robinsons. Using biblical characters in his teachings, he was probably able to compel more people to use his method in relieving sorrow.
Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross had different opinions on mourning but similar opinions on the idea of god and religion and the time it took to heal.
Robinson taught with the belief that the lost loved one was now in a better place and the value the death had for its country. Robinson also believed that people should be helped through the mourning process by others. He believed that more time meant more healing,"time in measure will help you." Robinson believed in, "time, nation, community, and God."
Cross believed that,"sorrow was no sin" and their was no wrong in crying or grieving. Cross used heros from the bible to show and "establish the history...of grief." He believed that in order to grieve you must vent and believed that it was wrong to deny someone time to grieve.
I agree with Cross because his belief was that to mourn was not sinful or wrong and that time and speaking out would help you to heal. Letting people know it was ok to grieve helped many people become understanding with their loss and using bibical characters also showed mourners that everyone grieved.
I agree with your statement that with time you will heal. I also disagree because sometimes it takes more then just time and you also need support. I believe that both Cross and Robinson are right in thier teachings because everyone overcomes loss in their own way. It all depends on which way works best for you.
I disagree with your opinion that you shouldn't mourn for so long. It is hard to let go of losing someone in such a terrible way. I agree with the statement that time will heal. If you move on too quickly, you tend to lose sight of the person you just lost. Giving yourself time to let go is important. You cant rush your time of mourning, and that is why I disagree with you.
Two different clergymen from two very different parts of the country had some of the same ideas about how mourning should be handled, but they also had differing ideas. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson believed time would be the greatest healer for those mourning. “…months and years would lessen the ‘first violences of sudden affliction.’” (165). He assured them that they would be able to “…look calmly on those days of grief.” (165). He listed three things that he believed would help the mourning process. Patriotism, the sympathy of others, and the hope of the gospel. Patriotism would help because “in a few years… they would look back and proudly recant the sacrifices of their dead…” (165). He also believed that “…shared mourning is easier mourning.” (165). Both Robinson and Joseph Cross of the South believed that the sympathy of others would help lighten the burden of sorrow.
Joseph Cross believed that everyone must openly grieve. “Acceptance of sorrow, he recognized, was a critical part in realizing death… grief must have vent, or it will break the heart…” (166). Like Robinson he understood that grief was a process. He believed that grief was necessary, but he warned against excess grief. “Grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others or become ‘indifferent to the public welfare’ or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health.” (166). They both had a little bit different tactics of how to deal with grief, but they both believed that there was a “time for mourning.” (166).
I agree with both of them but I mostly agree with Joseph Cross. I think that venting grief will help the healing process and being able to sympathize with others will also help.
Jordan, I agree with you that “without a vent, one usually doesn’t get over the inner pain.” People in mourning need to be able to get their grief out so they can find healing. I also agree with you that time does heal, but venting brings relief more quickly.
While I can see where you are coming from, I just do not think it is healthy to mourn for an extended period of time. No healing or growth occurs while in the act of mourning. Mourning is necessary, but it has no affect on what has happened. If someone loses themselves to mourning, they can lose sight of things in their life that they can control.
charls Seymor and Joseph Cross are the same in that they both believed mourning to be important and that god will ease their concience. Although like all people there were differences. Their ideas of how to mourn were near polar opposites. Seymor from the north said that over time you will accept. Over monthes and years god will heal your mind. On the other hand Cross from the south said that you need to vent. You need to let it all out because holding it in is onley hurting yourself.
I agree with cross more because it help to let your sorrows out and known. It makes it easier to accept and move on.
Even though Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross were on opposite side of the war, they shared the understanding of mourning as a process and that "'months and years' would lessen the 'first violence of a sudden affliction.'" They both offered shared suffering as a relief for mourning. Also, they "noted that there was a contained 'time for mourning,' with a finite end."
Aside from the similarities, Seymour and Cross had different views about how to mourn. Reverend Charles Seymour "listed three specific sources of consolation." Patriotism, he thought, would lessen the grief and would allow them to look back at the sacrifices of the dead, "giving their lives for their country." The sympathy of others, shared mourning would make it easier. Last, "the sublime hopes of the gospel will be solace to you." He thought the fallen soldier would rise again and offered "the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God." Where Joseph Cross "assured mourners that sorrow was no sin." He felt "it was important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it." He specified biblical mourners to establish history and legitimecy of grief, but he really worried about "excess of sorrow" and mourners getting too far from reality.
Personally I believe in Cross's views about mourning more. He seemed to be not as religious as Seymour and more realistic. He believed "The bereaved must work to alleviate their grief, attending to the solaces of friendship and religion. Cross concluded that the end would come gradually, through mourning and you have to let the grief out.
I agree with you that more pain is just caused by keeping emotions inside. It is better to let your emotions out, and as you said "venting brings about a quicker wave of relief." I believe it is a well balance of time, self sorrow, and shared sorrow that helps people get through mourning.
Reverend Charles Seymour and Joesph Cross used some of the same ideas when speaking to people who had just lost a loved one. Both men focused on the idea that God and faith would help them through the process. Also, they both believed that "the bereaved must work to alleviate their grief, attending to the solaces of friendship and religion." (166.) However, they also used many different ideas. Reverend Charles Seymour "reminded the mourners that time in a measure will help you," and that "months and years would lessen the first violence of a sudden affliction." (165). He also "offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation community, and God." (165).(165). Joseph Cross' ideas were different because he worried about an "excess of sorrow." (166). He also believed that excessive sorrow would lead to a "neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health." (166.) Joseph Cross also believed that "grief must have a vent or it will break the heart." (166).
I agree more with Joseph Cross' ideas. He believed that you must have a vent for all your grief. I also agree with him because he believed that if you mourn for too long, you cannot move on with your life.
Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross both had one main similarity which was to help people with their mourning. Both believed that faith would help those in grief. But they also have their differences. Reverend Charles Seymour believed "time in a meassure will help you."(165). Which meant that time will heal your wounds of grief. He also believed In patriotism will aid those to remind them of what every soldier is fighting for. Joseph Cross on the other hand thought differently. He believed that religion was the cure for all things. "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss... Religion," he explained, " does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it."(165-166).
I agree with Reverend Charles idea more than Joseph Cross. I think it takes time to move along after your loved one was killed. I liked how he tells many to embrace it as a patriotic act for defending their loved ones and country.
I disagree with your statement about how mourning for to long doesn't help their grief. I think it does because after a while they will start forgeting about but still remebering what they died for. I think that venting it all out does help but may increase their grief because they are talking about it.
Between both the North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross' views of mourning there were both similarities and differences. Both became great advocates for mourning as a "shared suffering as solace” (166). Each believed that one had great need for mourning because “It is cruel to deny one the relief of mourning when mourning is so often its own relief.” (166). With this both also agreed that sympathy was a necessity to the process, saying “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel… Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.”(166)
With these similarities there also came differences in their individual opinions on the mourning process. Charles Seymour felt that time was the most important part of healing, and that one should look in to religion for relief. This was completely unparallel to Cross' opinions on the matter felling that one should simply vent their sorrow and feelings of anger and pain. Another difference between the two was that Seymour sited his “three specific sources for consolation.” (165). Which included patriotism, sympathy for others and hope in the gospel. These sources were never a part of Cross' opinions or teachings of mourning.
Of the two clergymen I agree with the opinions of Joseph Cross. The fact of the matter is that one should never wrap themselves so tightly in the pain and sorrow of mourning the loss of a loved one. If you engulf yourself in that type of pain it makes it hard to move on and forget. In times of sorrow it is best to focus on what is good in life and move oneself toward that. Not prolonged pain and agony.
I certainly agree that it’s a good idea to remind mourners that have lost someone that their loved one died for something great. However, I have to disagree that prolonging the mourning process is best, or even healthy. It seems to me that the best thing to do is face this challenge of healing head on and find a way to advance to a brighter day in life. Prolonged pain can never solve a problem.
Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross were two clergymen that shared the same ideas about how to mourn; they believed that you should grieve. Seymour believed that, “time in a measure will help” (165). Robinson declared, that “Patriotism will come in to aid in mitigating the sorrow” (165). Along with Patriotism, Robinson listed “the sympathy of others” and “the sublime hopes of the gospel” as three sources of consolation (165).
Like Robinson, Cross believed that, “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Companion is better than counsel…Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.” He stated that “grief must have a vent, or it will break the heart” (166).However, Cross realized that excessive grief was bad thing, stating that it was “criminal when it obscured awareness of remaining mercies” (166).
Of the two, I would have to agree with Cross. He makes some very good points about mourning, but he also knew when to draw the line.
Your blog was very well written. I agree with your statement that Cross had a better way of mourning because he said that mourning is important and it should be experienced, but it is unreasonable to keep the grief inside of you. I think that holding in all that sadness would just break you down after awhile, and that is why Cross had a better way of mourning.
Cross and Robinson both had interesting views about how to mourned. Although from different sides, one from the North and one from the South, there were many similarities between the two. The biggest similarity is their connection with Christianity and God. Robinson said that "Finally, and above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you" (page 165). Cross states that "The bereaved must work to alleviate their grief, attending to the solaces of friendship and religion" and "Like Robinson, Cross noted that there was a contained time for mourning with a finite end" (page 166). They also both offered "shared suffering" (page 166) as a solace and they "both promised a gradual end to the agony of loss to be achieved through the work of mourning" (page 166).
Although there were similarities, there are alos clear differences in their opinions. "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God" (page 165) and "sourcxes of comfort and help", wherease "Cross included with his consolations a series of warnings" (page 166).
Both men had good views about mourning, but I agree with Cross more. Cross taught that "Sorrow was no sin" (page 165) and "Grief must have vent" (page 166). "It was important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it" (page 166). I think it was good that he showed people it is okay to show your emotions and to let it all out. That way, your friends and family can help you grieve and get through it. He also said that "Grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others or become 'indifferent to the public welfare' or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health" (page 166). I also agree with this statement because yes, it is important to grieve, but it is also important to not let the grief take over your life.
Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross both had similarities and differences in their views of how to mourn. Both men believed that “sympathy divides the sorrow and leaves but half the load,” (166). A common belief was that there is a time for mourning, and a time where mourning does not need to be outwardly expressed. Also commonly believed was the idea that acknowledging the death and sorrow will help the surviving realize and move past the death. Reverend Charles Seymour preached that time will lessen the pain that you’re feeling over the loss of the departed and that there were three specific sources of consolation: patriotism, sympathy, and religion. Joseph Cross was determined that mourning was a process for recovery, and that the process of mourning should not take an excessive amount of time. He believed “grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others,” (166). In my own view, I agree with Reverend Charles Seymour’s ideas of how to mourn. I strongly believe that mourning is a very personal process that no one should tell you how to go through it, but guide and give comfort to the mourner. Reverend Charles was one to encourage seeking “comfort and health,” (166), which is how I choose to believe mourning should be handled.
In response to jenni robinson: I agree, "It is also important to not let the grief take over your life." But going through the natural processes of grieving in your own time can only help better your understanding and realization of the loss that has occurred in your life. In a time where death was happening frequently and in large numbers, it would be extremely difficult to suppress it in the manner that Cross suggests for the people to do.
Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross had similarities and differences in their beliefs. Seymour said that "time in a measure will help you" and that "months and years would lessen the first violence of a sudden affliction" He thought that time was the key to acceptance. He also felt that the people who had lost loved ones in the war should be able to, in time, look back and be proud that their dead had sacrificed his life for his country.
Cross said "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss" He said that grief was okay. "Acceptance of sorrow, he realized, was a critical part of realizing death. It was important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it."
I agree with both of their opinions. Time is the key to getting over the loss of a loved one, but you also should not bottle up your emotions.
In response to Amy Bowman I agree that mourning is a very personal process. Most everyone has a different way of handling it. I personally would not want someone to tell me how to do it. But I would likely want someone to be there to comfort me.
Reverend Charles Seymor Robinson and Joseph Cross were two men living in the same era and through the same war but their visions on grief and mourning were not completely the same. Charles Seymor believed that "time in a measure will help you" (165)and that it would be time which would decrease the "first violence of a sudden affliction" (165). This wise reverend helped soothe the families' pain by offering them the "healing forces of time, nation, community, and God." (165) Meanwhile, Joseph Cross, who was a man from the Tennessee, assured the people attending General Daniel Donelson's funeral oration the "sorrow was no sin" (165). Joseph stated that religion "does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it." He was a firm believer in the Christian faith and human phsycology and felt that these two "nourished" each other and interwinded. The similarities which these two men shared were their deep faith in the Lord and a belief that sympathy plays a great role when trying to overcome grief.
I agree with Reverend Charles Seymor because I also feel that time helps lessen the deep pain caused by loosing a relative. He was right to say that it is the "months and years" (165) whcih decrease the initial sorrow and allow you to move on.
I agree with you because it seems to me that Charles Seymor had some good pints which were probably of much help to the people when he offered them “Patriotism, shared mourning, and hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you"(165). These things he said would come in "to aid in mitigating the sorrow." (165)
Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross, two clergymen on opposite sides of the war, had both comparable and distinct views on the process of mourning. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson of the North focused on “time, nation, community, and God.” (165) He told mourners that “time in a measure will help you” and “you will by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief.” (165) Joseph Cross of the South shared this view. Like Robinson, he told his followers that “there was a contained ‘time for mourning,’ with a finite end.” (166) However, Cross based his process of mourning more on the “solaces of friendship and religion.” (166) He believed “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel . . . Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.” (166) He meant that to mourn with a comrade would be better than to have sympathy for one. One considerable resemblance between the two clergymen’s mourning processes was that of which involved God. Robinson declared “above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you.” (165) In accord with Robinson, Cross “enumerated biblical mourners . . . to establish the history and legitimacy of grief. Unlike Robinson’s method to mourning, Cross’s was accompanied by warnings. He believed that “grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others or become ‘indifferent to the public welfare’ or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health” (166) and strongly advised against this. Even though the processes of mourning developed by Robinson and Cross differentiated a bit, “both promised a gradual end to the agony of loss to be achieved through the work of mourning.” (166)
I would follow Joseph Cross’s ideas on mourning above Charles Seymour’s for one reason. Cross’s process had a touch more reality in it than Robinson’s peaches and cream, time will heal all wounds discourse. “Cross included with his consolations a series of warnings.” (166) Joseph realized that mourning and grief could only be taken so far until they began to destroy the one still living. He gave the warnings he did to mourners because he knew that an “excess of sorrow” (166) could ruin their lives. Seymour never even touches on what to do if enough is enough. Because of Cross’s candid view on the subject, I would be more compelled to follow his word than Seymour’s.
RE: Larissa Davis It is refreshing to see someone who is brave enough to declare accord with both of these men’s views; I did not have the valiancy to do so. I completely agree with what you wrote about the undying memory of family. “It helps to know that your loved ones will not be forgotten nor will their sacrifices, which is a concept he stressed to his listeners.” I think that you did a great job on summing up all of the valuable views Cross and Robinson demonstrated in their processes of mourning.
The North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross had many similarities and differences. They both had faith in god and both played a large religious role in their communities.
One obvious difference between the two is that one is from the North and one is from the South. Reverend Charles Seyour offered "a primer in grief and consolation" (165). He once said," Time in a measure will help you." Joseph Cross showed the understanding of psychology loss and for what it means to alleviate and explain sorrow.
I agree with the South's Reverend Charles Seyour because he has a better way to mourn. Instead of just waiting for time to do its job and have the griefing finally leave you can vent you mourning in more scientifically correct way. That is through psychology. That can help find out what is going through your mind and from my perspective, would have a better mourning.
I agree with Lauren O'Brien. I think that the South's Joseph Cross had a better idea of mourning than the North's Reverend Charles Seymour. You stated in your blog,"Cross’s process had a touch more reality in it than Robinson’s peaches and cream, time will heal all wounds discourse." I think that statement just about somes up my perspective about this topic. Reverend Charles Seymour just had to simple of an idea for me.
Joseph Cross and Charles Seymour had some similarities and some differences in their beliefs of mourning. Both felt that mourning was important when someone died. They were similar because they were also connected to God and Christianity.
The differences between the two were that Cross believed that excessive grief wasn't good, while Seymour felt that time was a very important part of the healing process.
I would agree with Cross's ideas on mourning over Seymour's ideas. I agree because he felt that you should mourn over loved ones but not get wrapped up in it to the point that mourning is all you do.
I agree that it “helps to know that your loved ones will not be forgotten nor will their sacrifices”. Although I believe one should mainly rely on oneself to overcome the pain, it’s important to remember those who fought as heroes, and never forget that they gave the ultimate sacrifice to fighting for what they believed in. I also agree that “Cross is definitely right about letting your feelings run their course without denying them.” If people didn’t grieve, they would be filled with so much hatred and despair inside.
Even though Joseph Cross and Charles Seymour Robinson were on different sides during the war, they shared some of the same beliefs and also some differences.
Both believed that God would help ease the pain of losing a loved one. However, this is where their similarities end. Robinson believed that time would heal the pain and you should just wait it out. Cross thought that it was good to vent our yout anger and misery.
Personally, I agree with Robinson. Violence is not the answer, especially in such unstable times as misery. It does not make sense to me that Cross would have people vent out their anger if God was already going to help ease their pain.
“How to mourn was often something that had to be learned.” (165) Both clergymen offered ways to help those who had lost someone. Cross felt like one should only mourn for a set period of time, While Seymour felt like one should be able to mourn until they felt it was right. "You will. . . by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief" (165). I agree with both men’s views on mourning. The loss of someone close should be recognized and mourned, but it should not take up someone’s entire life.
Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross had similar views about mourninig, such that God would help you through your time of grief. Seymour believed more in sympathy, religion, and time to heal, and Cross thought that releasing your emotions such as anger.
Seymour had a more set belief system for healing with time and others sympathy and God. Cross had a more open mind and let people deal with their emotions more on their own and through God.
I believe more in Cross' ideas and beliefs, because everyone is different. Each person has their own way of dealing with their emotions, and "there isno guilt in tears."
Some similarities and differences between the north's reverend charles Seymor and the South's Joseph Cross views about how to mourn are ones such as these.The main similarity they had was they both found relief in god. The others sympathy was also thought to be a healing process between the two men.
Charles Robinson focused on the thought that religion was a way to be relieved from a loss and also the idea of time was a focus of his. However, Joseph Cross had the idea that sorrow was no sin. He also had said, "Religion does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it"(166). In my opinion, they both have good reasoning towards their beliefs, but I would have to side with Joseph Cross on this ubject because he did believe that mourning was not just acceptable but encouraged. I completely with him on that, it is better to take your and let it out rather than hold it in.
Although they helped different types of people Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross had similar ways of looking at mourning. Both of these clergymen believed that mourning was a way to overcome the sadness from losing a loved one; as shown, ”Like Robinson-and indeed, like Freud-Cross understood mourning as a process and promised his congregation progress through grief to some measure of recovery.”(166) However much alike they would preach, they also had some different views. While at a funeral for Colonel James M. Green, Charles Seymour said, "time in a measure will help you." God's mercy had provided the "months and years" would lessen the "first violence of a sudden affliction." ... always feel their loss, he acknowledged, and always remember the departed with affection. (165) He also listed three sources of consolation, "... the healing sources of time, nation, community, and God." (165) Joseph Cross had a slight variation of looking at mourning. "Christian Faith and human psychology were in his view deeply intertwined, and each supported and nourished the other."(166) To legitimize grief, Cross would recognize biblical mourners. He also thought there to be no sin in grief, "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss.....religion."(165) Cross, like Robinson also believed suffering to be a solace, “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel… sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.”
Of the two clergymen, I’d have to agree with Cross’ ideas more because of his quoted comments. Both of these men had similar ideals but Cross’ comments were in my opinion more comforting. He told mourners (basically) that their mourning was natural and would make them stronger. He also comforted them by letting them know that god was with them in their mourning.
Robinson and Cross were both on different sides of the war, which both had different cultures. They both were pastors and both had ideas of how to handle grief, but these ideas were just as different as the two cultures that they were separated by. Robinson believed that "time" was the way to go and expressed that "as the months and years passed, the "first violence of a sudden affliction" would lessen." Cross believed that while you shouldn't ignore the grief that you have, you shouldn't let it hold you back. I side with cross who basically teaches the "best of both worlds."
Emily, I see your point, but Cross was not trying to inspire violence by venting, but just trying to show that its best to not let your grief last forever so you should use it to help you move on with your life. I don't see it as venting, but more like using grief as inspiration to move on.
I totally agree with your statement, "If someone loses themselves to mourning, they can lose sight of things in their life that they can control." Especially during the Civil War, I feel people who had lost so much, could focus too much on what they lost, not what they still had.
In response to Baker- I totally agree with your post, there can not be a time limit to ones mourning. No matter what one believes, everyone is different and handles hardship in their own way. I agree that Cross seamed to be saying faith controlled how long you should mourn. I also believe that time is needed to truly mend the wounds and depression wounds. It is nearly impossible to just let go without the time of which to heal.
I agree with you when you say, "The quicker a person lets go of the deceased, the faster they will feel solace." Its best to move on in life, rather than continue grieving for a long time.
Brian- When you say, "I side with cross who basically teaches the "best of both worlds." Best of both worlds is a very good way of putting Cross' teachings.
Brian- Youre right when you say that cross has the best of both worlds because he has a more open and free method of dealing with grief, and he has no rule of time, and he still encompasses God into his healing beliefs.
Some similarities between Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross’ views about how to mourn were that by grieving people could recover and that sympathy would help people mourn. Robinson offered more sources of comfort and help, whereas Cross warned people about “excess sorrow.” I agree with Robinson more because I don’t think people should have to worry about excess sorrow as they mourn the loss of a loved one.
Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross were both from different sides, North and South, but they each believed that mourning was essential to healing the soul from losses, and they both believed that having God in a person's life could help take away much of the pain. However, their beliefs in how to mourn where different. Reverend Charles Seymour believed that time could help to heal, and Joseph Cross believed that venting and letting out the pain could help to heal.
I think that both methods can be very effective, and that it just depends on the person dealing with the loss. Everyone is different and everyone deals with loss in a different way. I personally would prefer Cross' method to dealing with loss, because I feel much better when I can let out my feelings and let out some of the pain.
I absolutely agree with what you stated in your post, especially when you said that, " it is better to take your and let it out rather than hold it in", because that is exactly how I personally feel about mourning and the healing process.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross were both from different parts of the civil war but had the same ideas. They both believed that mourning was an important part of healing from your loss. They also believed that god could also help ease the pain of the loss as well.
They also had differnt ideas. Reverend Robinson believe that time and the sympathy of others could heal the hurt you had. Cross had the idea that you should relieve yourself of the anger and turmoil you had by mourning. He also believed that you should openly grieve but not excess grief.
I agree with Cross because everyone does heal at their own time and pase. But it is hard for most to deal with their pain of the lost loved one and so i believe it is better for them to openly grieve of their pain and to not hold it in.
I agree with Heidi because I am a person that will bottle up most of my angry and frustration. But with Cross's ideas it would help me let out my greif and would help me heal on my own time and not on anyone else's. I think that during this time many people were in the same situtaion.
Both Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson’s and Joseph Cross’s goal was to help people they went about in very different ways. Charles taught that time will heal everything and that one day people will look back on the departed with affection and gratitude. Also that shared mourning was much easier mourning than alone. Joseph said that grief and sorrow was ok and that tears are no crime. So he was saying that sorrow was the only way to get past a death. Both Charles and Joseph believed that faith in religion and god would also help get past a death. Personally both ideas are helpful. I agree with Charles Seymour, that time does eventually heal everything and it helps to look back and think of a lost loved one with respect and gratitude. But I also agree with Cross because sometimes people need to let out their pain rather than keep it in. So I agree with both men.
I agree that both men helped people with grief and that it helps if people remember and never forget what a loved one did for his or her country. I also agree that you must let your feelings run their course and just let them out instead of denying them and keeping them bottled up.
Though Reverends Charles Seymour of the North and Joseph Cross of the South where located in two differing places, they held beliefs that had many similarities and differences. "At an upstate New York funeral service for Lieutenant Colonel James M. Green......reverend Charles Seymour Robinson reminded mourners that "time in a measure will help you.""(165) The reverend stated that as the months and years passed, the "first violence of a sudden affliction" would lessen.(165) "Robinson listed three sources of consolation." (165) He believed that Patriotism, for it provided a mourner the freedom to feel proud about a loved ones death in the war, others sympathy as he believed "shared mourning was easier mourning", and "the sublime hopes of the gospel" as a solace. "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and god." (165) Robinson's southern counterpart preached a little differently. He first off assured mourners that "sorrow was no sin."(165) Cross believed that acceptance of sorrow was a critical part of realizing death. He believed "grief must have a vent, or it will break the heart....It is cruel to deny one the relief of mourning when mourning is so often its own relief." (166) Like Robinson, Cross believed that Mourning is a process and he urged his congregation to trek through the guilt as they would eventually come upon relief. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson tried to ease mourners pain as he stated on day they shall be able to look back on the days of despair with calm eyes while Joseph Cross believed that one must vent out their grief before they could feel relief.
ReplyDeletePersonally, my thoughts coincide with Reverend Joseph Cross. I believe that without a vent, one usually doesn’t get over the inner pain. Venting releases boxed up emotions that cause pain when they go unshared. Although time certainly does help one feel better, venting brings about a quicker wave of relief. Time alone is not the most sufficient, as an individual would be plagued by bottled up sorrow for the extent.
The similarities between Robinson and Cross, were that they both believed in God to help ease the pain. “Like Robinson as well, Cross offered shared suffering as solace” (166). As stated, both also believe in the aid of other’s sympathy.
ReplyDeleteThe differences between Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross, were that Robinson focused mainly on time, sympathy of others, and religion as relief of despair, while Cross believed in venting and releasing the feelings of anger and agony. Robinson “reminded mourners that ‘time in a measure will help you.’” (165). He believed that eventually people would ‘be able to look calmly on these days of grief.’ (165). Robinson “listed three specific sources of consolation.” (165). These were patriotism, sympathy of others, and God.
Joseph Cross began his funeral oration for General Daniel Donelson, “by assuring the mourners that sorrow was no sin.” (165). Cross felt that it was completely acceptable to vent in times of misery, that ‘there is no guilt in tears’ (165). He believed that mourning was not just acceptable, but rather encouraged, because it was “important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it.” (166). Similarly, he said; ‘Grief must have vent, or it will break the heart… It is its own relief.’ (166).
Although I agree with both, I agree with Joseph Cross more. Instead of waiting out the pain, he believed in venting it out. “Cross understood mourning as a process and promised his congregation progress through grief to some measure of recovery.” (166). Robinson simply reminded people that “God’s mercy had provided that ‘months and years’ would lessen the ‘first violence of a sudden affliction.’” (165). Robinson rarely talked about self grieving, he led people to believe in relying on others to ease the pain, while Cross believed in both self grieving, but also believed that “Sorrow calls for sympathy.” (166).
Joseph Cross and Charles Seymour Robinson were on opposite ends of the war, but both had there similarities and differences. The main similarity was that they both found a relief in God. They also believed that other's sympathy was a healing process.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Cross believed that sorrow was no sin. "It is no crime to feel our loss ... Religion does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctify it."(165-166). He the Amreican people that you must feel the "stroke"of loss. But he also warned of a limit to excess amounts of grief.
Robinson focused on the idea of time, sympathy, and religion as relief from a loss. Robinson told mourners, " God's mercy had provided that 'months and years' would lessen the 'first violence of a sudden afflication.'" (165). As CJ said Robinson listed Patriosim, sympathy, and God as specific sources of consolation.
I can understand both, but I agree with Joseph Cross more. Cross thought that mourning was important and that it should be experieneced. It seemed unreasonable, to him, to keep grif inside of you. That it would break your heart and that sorrow was no sin. Robinson believed that relying on others was nearly the only way to ease the pain. Cross believed both and thats why I find Cross's opinion to be better.
Jordan
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post for many reasons. Venting is one of the most effective ways to get past a lose. Time does help but its so important to vent during that time to. It seemed like Robinson thought venting grief was unacceptable. Sorrow demands sympathy, and to deny it is painful.
Although Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross were on opposing sides of the war, they both believed that God would, as CJ pointed out, ease the pain and help cope with the idea of death. They both also believed that time would help with the agony and that shared mourning was the best way to mourn. However these two men also had differences in their views on mourning.
ReplyDeleteReverend Seymour believed that 3 specific sources would help with consolation. "'Patriotism,' he declared, 'will come into aid in mitigating the sorrow.'" Shared mourning was another source, and finally, "above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you."
Cross believed strongly that "Grief must have vent, or it will break the heart." He also focused strongly on excessive mourning being criminal. "Grief was 'excessive and therefore, criminal,' he repeated, when it ignored God's purposes and consolations." Cross also included a list of warnings with his consolation; while the reverend "offered sources of comfort and help." However "both promised a gradual end to the agony of death to be achieved through the work of mourning."
Although John Cross was harsher in putting it, I believe his ideas were better. For instance he believed in venting your anger and sadness rather than holding it inside of you. He also enforced the idea that sorrow was not sin. "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss."
Jordan-
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement “Time alone is not the most sufficient, as an individual would be plagued by bottled up sorrow for the extent." This is an excellent observation! People who keep anger and sorrow inside themselves can never move on past these feelings without venting.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross,even though on opposite sides still had very similar view points. I agree mainly with Robinson "Time in measure will help you"(165).
ReplyDeleteI agree with this because time will eventually heal all wounds, metaphorically speaking. I do not believe There is a proper limit like Cross states "where then is the proper limit... excessive therefore criminal"(166). There is no end time to mourning people go thier entire lives sometime never letting go. It is always a never ending sorrow.
Cross had viewpoints saying "Religion does not destroy nature,but regulates it,does not remove sorrow , but sanctifies it"(166). To me this seems like he is saying religion controls eveything about death your faith in god will determine how long or how much u will mourn.
Robinson believed that Patroitism would help aid the sorrow. For having faith in ones country would help the death seem more important in a way. He also believed and preached about life and resurection after death. Which would help mourners because they then new that their loved one would be seen again.
These are the two separete, yet similar view points of these two great men.
Reverend Charles Seymour “offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God” (165). He believed people would “look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead, giving their lives for their country” (165) and that they would always remember those who they lost. He stressed the concept that “shared mourning… was easier mourning” (165) and believed that sympathy from others was essential to recovery. A major focus of his was the idea that the dead would rise again just as Christ did.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Cross believed that “there is no guilt in tears” (165) and that there was nothing wrong with feeling sorrow. He believed in the importance of venting and letting your feelings out. In his opinion, “Christian belief and human psychology were… deeply intertwined” (166) meaning religion made it possible for sorrow and pain to be felt. He stressed that one must not deny their pain but instead “suffer in the face of loss” (166). He believed that mourning was its own sense of relief.
Both of these men stressed the importance of human compassion. Seymour believed that group mourning helped one recovery. Cross stressed that “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel… Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load” (165). It seems that both men saw grieving as a process one must endure to recover to normal life. They realized that religion was a major factor in regaining emotional stability. Both men were devoted to lecturing and helping those in pain and showing the many ways of relieving such suffering.
I agree with both of these men. Sympathy from others tends to lighten the burden of sorrow. I also agree that grieving is a process that you endure in order to recover. I agree with Charles Seymour and his ideas on nation, time, and community. It helps to know that your loved ones will not be forgotten nor will their sacrifices, which is a concept he stressed to his listeners. Although I agree with Seymour more, I think Cross is definitely correct about letting your feelings run their course without denying them.
Baker-
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. Time heals all wounds and eventually the pain fades. I also agree with what you said about how there "is no end time to mourning" and how some things one can never let go. Cross' quote saying there is a certain point where you should stop mourning is fairly insensitive. Saying such a thing is nothing compared to the action of doing so. I agree that some things you can't help but mourn about for long periods of time as you pointed out. Great argument.
North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross had similarities and differences in their views about how to mourn. Seymour view was based on time, and sympathy. He said that “time in a measure will help you.”(165). He also said that “God’s mercy had provided that ‘months and years’ would lessen the ‘first violence of a sudden affliction.’”(165). He then listed the three specific sources of consolation. He said “Patriotism” was first; the second would be sympathy of others, and a third and “above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you.”(165). For Cross “He began by assuring the mourners that sorrow was no sin.”(165). He had examples of past history like Abraham for Sarah, Joseph for Jacob, and David for Jonathan. He believed that sorrow was a critical part of realizing death. Like Robinson, Cross understood mourning as a process and promised his congregation. Cross often shared suffering as solace: “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel… Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.”(166)
ReplyDeleteI personally agree more with Cross than I do with Robinson. I agree with venting out the pain is better than waiting out the pain. I also agree that sorrow is not a sin, and that sorrow calls for sympathy. I agree also with that compassion is better than counsel. I believe like Cross that sorrow was a critical part of realizing death. That is why I agree with Joseph Cross more than I agree with Charles Seymour.
CJ,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said on your post. I agree with what you said for the differences between North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross' views about how to mourn. I like how you said that Robinson focused mainly on time, sympathy of others, and religion as relief of despair, while Cross believed in venting and releasing the feelings of anger and agony. The similarities were also very good. I also agree with your pick to agree more with Cross than Robinson. That was a good post
Despite the fact that Reverend Charles Seymour of the North, and Joseph Cross of the South were situated on opposing sides during the Civil War, their views concerning the act of mourning contained many similarities. Both men believed firmly in the idea of “mourning as a process.” (166). The concept that time was a critical component in healing the "first violence of a sudden affliction" was a staple of both men’s beliefs. Seymour and Cross also considered the act of mourning a necessity. Cross stated, “It is cruel to deny one the relief of mourning when mourning is so often its own relief.” (166). Lastly, both Cross and Seymour “offered shared suffering as solace.” (166). They maintained that “Compassion is better than council…Sympathy divides the sorrow and, leaves but half the load.” However, an important difference is prevalent in Charles and Joseph’s views about mourning. Charles Seymour was an advocate of “three specific sources for consolation.” (165). These included patriotism, sympathy for others, and hope in the gospel. Joseph Cross made no specific mention of any of these aspects in his teachings about the proper way to mourn.
ReplyDeleteOf the two clergymen, I agree with mostly with Joseph Cross. This is because he was a strong supporter of the idea that sorrow was “criminal when it obscured the awareness of remaining mercies.” (166). I agree that you can only mourn for so long, and need to keep the other positive aspects of your life in perspective. No true healing can occur if one gives themselves up completely to the process of mourning.
Mourning was something that both sides had done but, both had different views on how to mourn for the fallen soldiers. Reverend Charles Seymour of the north, and the south’s Joseph Cross both had similarities and differences when it came to the time for mourning. Both of these men had considered mourning a necessity. Both thought that mourning was also a process, so the mourner would heal over a period of time. There was one big difference between the two reverends; Charles Seymour was an advocate for sources of consolation. These sources were, patriotism, having sympathy for others, and hope in the gospel. On the other hand, Joseph Cross had not mentioned anything about these sources of consolation in his teachings about how to mourn.
ReplyDeleteOut of the two reverends, I agree with reverend Joseph Cross. Even though his teaching might had been harsher than Seymour’s, Cross’s ideas were a little better and more thought out. Cross had believed to let all of your anger and sadness out than rather to hold it inside of you for a very long time. He had also enforced the idea that sorrow wasn’t a sin.
I agree with Jordan. That overall Joseph Cross’s teachings were better and found more helpful than Seymour’s teachings. The mourner’s pain can’t be held up inside forever, so it is better to let it out sooner than later
hank hammond
ReplyDeleteReverend Charles Seymour and the south's Joseph Cross were very similar and vvery different in many various ways, despite their place geographically in the country. At Lieutenent Colonel James M. Green's funeral, Seymour stated," time in measure will not help you. Months and years would lessen the first violence of a sudden afflicion. He also masde clear that sharing mourning would be easier mourning.
These remarks are vary similar to Joseph Cross at the funeral service for General Daniel Donelson. "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss...Religion does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it.
Both of these men in these instances are trying to comfort the mourners by telling them that it is normal for death to occer and there are ways to overcome the pain of death.
Yet they are different in some ways mostly because of what was going on in the north compared to the south. Cross for example used many biblical relations to speak at funerals. At this time in the south, southerners were starting to question religion and ig they dont win the war, God will have had no reason to let all those men die. So Cross to an aproach that may have helped re-install religion in the south. This is why Richard Seymour and Joseph Cross are similar in some ways, yet different in others.
hank hammond
ReplyDeleteI forgot to say which one i agreed with more. Sorry everybody. I like Joseph Crosse's aproach to mourning better because he used more of the bible and this helped re-ensure southerners of God and how he is still with them in these hard times.
hank hammond
ReplyDeleteIn response to Evan
I agree with you that Cross was a more qualified teacher about mourning during the civil war. He had better thought out ideals on how to approach. Yet you said that Cross did not acknowledge the gospel in his teachings. The book said that he constantly made reference to Abraham, John, and many other biblical characters. This is why I believe you are on the right path with Cross, yet not completely well-informed.
The two clergymen had many similarities and differences of how to mourn. A similarity that both Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross believed was that mourning was a process and it took time to recover. Also, the two men offered suffering as solace, "Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel...Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the sorrow." (166). Some differences were Seymour Robinson reminded mourners that "time in a measure will help you." (165). He said that the more time you give to grieving, the better you will be. But Cross believed differently, he said that once you accept your sorrows and realize death, you will be able to overcome mourning. Joseph Cross also said that "excessive sorrow" was not good, and that you should not mourn for excessive amounts of time. Another difference is that Joseph Cross believed that "the bereaved must work to alleviate their grief, attending to the solaces of friendship and religion." (165). Where as Robinson offered "sources of comfort and help." (165).
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson because he offered time to those who need more time to recover. Also, Robinson offered comfort and help to any person who needs it. I like that he gives time, because it is very hard to go through losing someone whom you love so much. Another reason why I agree with Charles Seymour’s views more is because he spoke to his listeners about the three specific sources of consolation. “Patriotism, shared mourning, and hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you.” (165). I appreciate his words for those who mourned over their loved ones back then, and that’s why I agree with Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson.
The North's Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross had many ideas about how to mourn. They both agreed that time would lessen the grief and "by and by be able to look calmly upon these days of grief."(165) Seymour believed everyone would still feel for their loss and "always remember the departed with affection."(165) He also said that Patriotism, sympathy for others, and "the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you."(165)
ReplyDeleteCharles Seymour Robinson had many good points about mourning but I believe Joseph Cross had some better ideas. "Christian faith and human psychology were in his view."(166) He comforted his mourners by saying that "sorrow was no sin."(165) He stated that it was no crime to feel for a loss. He encouraged people to mourn because "grief must have vent, or it will break the heart."(166) I believe that the best thing he said, was not to mourn too much. He said that sorrow was "criminal when it obscured the awareness of remaining mercies.” They both had great points and helped many people, but I agree with Cross more.
Golight,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I believe Cross made better points in mourning. It is better to vent out your pain rather than wait for it to go away. You said, "He had examples of past history like Abraham for Sarah, Joseph for Jacob, and David for Jonathan," which is great because it allows people to trust him more. He ensured his mourners that sorrow was not a sin and it helped. He is smart because although people need to mourn, they need to control it. While mourning for their loved ones they can't let it take over their lives and they need to stay aware to "remaining mercies."
Robinson and Cross had differing opinions on the correct way to mourn. Robinson felt that time would heal the pain of losing loved ones. He believed in three sources that would console mourners. The first source was patriotism. He felt that in time, people would look back at the good that came out of the war, and the feeling of grief would not be as strong. Pride would overcome sorrow. The second source Robinson believed in was sympathy of others. This gave people the idea that they had people there to take care of them and help get through the pain. Robinson’s last source had to do with faith. He believed that God could heal all grief.
ReplyDeleteCross presented a different way to mourn. He believed that being able to vent and be open about one’s sorrow was the way to heal. He said that it was not a sin to be sorrowful. Mourning was good in his eyes because when you lose someone, it is healthy to suffer. However, Cross agreed with Robinson that you need sympathy of others to deal with the pain. He also thought that it was good to turn to God.
I tend to agree more with Robinson’s idea of how to mourn. I think he has it completely right with his three sources to console mourners. Although I think that Cross’s idea of venting could be more efficient for some people, I am a believer that time will heal. In my experience, with the sympathy of others and faith, everything gets better in time.
Erin,
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good point about Cross’s idea of mourning, but I disagree with you. I feel that with Robinson’s view, you are not really keeping your emotions inside of you. You are simply letting them out in a calmer way. It is natural to be angry and need to vent when you are in pain, but I think Robinson displays a better way of doing this.
Despite the fact that Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson (North) and Joseph Cross (South) were on opposing sides of the Civil War, their perspectives on the process of mourning were similar in some ways, yet different. Both of the clergymen’s ideals were based on religious references and the prospect of God.
ReplyDeleteCharles Seymour Robinson focused his teachings about the properties of mourning mainly on the spiritual idea that “time heals all wounds.” In his teachings, he discussed his three specific sources of consultation. First, he wanted people to realize the profound importance of each death and its value toward their country. Second, he knew that the mourning would be easier if it was shared with others and others would feel the same way. Finally, he wanted people to know that the lost loved one was in a better place away from war and violence. With these simple notes in mind, he made it easier for someone to ease one’s passing.
Joseph Cross based most of his teachings upon the Christian faith and morals found in the Bible. “There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss.” (165) Religion, he believed, was one of the key aspects that were used to subsidize the effect of mourning. “Acceptance of sorrow, he recognized, was a critical part of realizing death.” (166) He also believed that one cannot fully feel relief without disposing of grief.
I personally would have to agree with Joseph Cross’ ideas more than Robinsons. I would have to agree with his idea that grief is the only thing that holds a person back from finding relief. The quicker a person lets go of the deceased, the faster they will feel solace. Even though I agreed with Cross more than Robinson, I still believe that both had something to offer the sorrowful people about the terms of relief and letting go.
Re: Tanner Corah
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about how Joseph Cross’ ideas about mourning were better. He dealt more with the religious side of grief and mourning. Due to the strong religious influence of that time period, his ideas were taken to more than Robinsons. Using biblical characters in his teachings, he was probably able to compel more people to use his method in relieving sorrow.
Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross had different opinions on mourning but similar opinions on the idea of god and religion and the time it took to heal.
ReplyDeleteRobinson taught with the belief that the lost loved one was now in a better place and the value the death had for its country. Robinson also believed that people should be helped through the mourning process by others. He believed that more time meant more healing,"time in measure will help you." Robinson believed in, "time, nation, community, and God."
Cross believed that,"sorrow was no sin" and their was no wrong in crying or grieving. Cross used heros from the bible to show and "establish the history...of grief." He believed that in order to grieve you must vent and believed that it was wrong to deny someone time to grieve.
I agree with Cross because his belief was that to mourn was not sinful or wrong and that time and speaking out would help you to heal. Letting people know it was ok to grieve helped many people become understanding with their loss and using bibical characters also showed mourners that everyone grieved.
Kendra LaFonte-
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that with time you will heal. I also disagree because sometimes it takes more then just time and you also need support. I believe that both Cross and Robinson are right in thier teachings because everyone overcomes loss in their own way. It all depends on which way works best for you.
Nick Burns,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your opinion that you shouldn't mourn for so long. It is hard to let go of losing someone in such a terrible way. I agree with the statement that time will heal. If you move on too quickly, you tend to lose sight of the person you just lost. Giving yourself time to let go is important. You cant rush your time of mourning, and that is why I disagree with you.
Two different clergymen from two very different parts of the country had some of the same ideas about how mourning should be handled, but they also had differing ideas. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson believed time would be the greatest healer for those mourning. “…months and years would lessen the ‘first violences of sudden affliction.’” (165). He assured them that they would be able to “…look calmly on those days of grief.” (165). He listed three things that he believed would help the mourning process. Patriotism, the sympathy of others, and the hope of the gospel. Patriotism would help because “in a few years… they would look back and proudly recant the sacrifices of their dead…” (165). He also believed that “…shared mourning is easier mourning.” (165). Both Robinson and Joseph Cross of the South believed that the sympathy of others would help lighten the burden of sorrow.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Cross believed that everyone must openly grieve. “Acceptance of sorrow, he recognized, was a critical part in realizing death… grief must have vent, or it will break the heart…” (166). Like Robinson he understood that grief was a process. He believed that grief was necessary, but he warned against excess grief. “Grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others or become ‘indifferent to the public welfare’ or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health.” (166). They both had a little bit different tactics of how to deal with grief, but they both believed that there was a “time for mourning.” (166).
I agree with both of them but I mostly agree with Joseph Cross. I think that venting grief will help the healing process and being able to sympathize with others will also help.
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that “without a vent, one usually doesn’t get over the inner pain.” People in mourning need to be able to get their grief out so they can find healing. I also agree with you that time does heal, but venting brings relief more quickly.
Danielle
ReplyDeleteWhile I can see where you are coming from, I just do not think it is healthy to mourn for an extended period of time. No healing or growth occurs while in the act of mourning. Mourning is necessary, but it has no affect on what has happened. If someone loses themselves to mourning, they can lose sight of things in their life that they can control.
charls Seymor and Joseph Cross are the same in that they both believed mourning to be important and that god will ease their concience. Although like all people there were differences. Their ideas of how to mourn were near polar opposites. Seymor from the north said that over time you will accept. Over monthes and years god will heal your mind. On the other hand Cross from the south said that you need to vent. You need to let it all out because holding it in is onley hurting yourself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with cross more because it help to let your sorrows out and known. It makes it easier to accept and move on.
Even though Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross were on opposite side of the war, they shared the understanding of mourning as a process and that "'months and years' would lessen the 'first violence of a sudden affliction.'" They both offered shared suffering as a relief for mourning. Also, they "noted that there was a contained 'time for mourning,' with a finite end."
ReplyDeleteAside from the similarities, Seymour and Cross had different views about how to mourn. Reverend Charles Seymour "listed three specific sources of consolation." Patriotism, he thought, would lessen the grief and would allow them to look back at the sacrifices of the dead, "giving their lives for their country." The sympathy of others, shared mourning would make it easier. Last, "the sublime hopes of the gospel will be solace to you." He thought the fallen soldier would rise again and offered "the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God." Where Joseph Cross "assured mourners that sorrow was no sin." He felt "it was important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it." He specified biblical mourners to establish history and legitimecy of grief, but he really worried about "excess of sorrow" and mourners getting too far from reality.
Personally I believe in Cross's views about mourning more. He seemed to be not as religious as Seymour and more realistic. He believed "The bereaved must work to alleviate their grief, attending to the solaces of friendship and religion. Cross concluded that the end would come gradually, through mourning and you have to let the grief out.
Jordan Farmer,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that more pain is just caused by keeping emotions inside. It is better to let your emotions out, and as you said "venting brings about a quicker wave of relief." I believe it is a well balance of time, self sorrow, and shared sorrow that helps people get through mourning.
Reverend Charles Seymour and Joesph Cross used some of the same ideas when speaking to people who had just lost a loved one. Both men focused on the idea that God and faith would help them through the process. Also, they both believed that "the bereaved must work to alleviate their grief, attending to the solaces of friendship and religion." (166.) However, they also used many different ideas. Reverend Charles Seymour "reminded the mourners that time in a measure will help you," and that "months and years would lessen the first violence of a sudden affliction." (165). He also "offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation community, and God." (165).(165). Joseph Cross' ideas were different because he worried about an "excess of sorrow." (166). He also believed that excessive sorrow would lead to a "neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health." (166.) Joseph Cross also believed that "grief must have a vent or it will break the heart." (166).
ReplyDeleteI agree more with Joseph Cross' ideas. He believed that you must have a vent for all your grief. I also agree with him because he believed that if you mourn for too long, you cannot move on with your life.
Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross both had one main similarity which was to help people with their mourning. Both believed that faith would help those in grief. But they also have their differences. Reverend Charles Seymour believed "time in a meassure will help you."(165). Which meant that time will heal your wounds of grief. He also believed In patriotism will aid those to remind them of what every soldier is fighting for. Joseph Cross on the other hand thought differently. He believed that religion was the cure for all things. "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss... Religion," he explained, " does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it."(165-166).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Reverend Charles idea more than Joseph Cross. I think it takes time to move along after your loved one was killed. I liked how he tells many to embrace it as a patriotic act for defending their loved ones and country.
In response to Chris Huth
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your statement about how mourning for to long doesn't help their grief. I think it does because after a while they will start forgeting about but still remebering what they died for. I think that venting it all out does help but may increase their grief because they are talking about it.
Between both the North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross' views of mourning there were both similarities and differences. Both became great advocates for mourning as a "shared suffering as solace” (166). Each believed that one had great need for mourning because “It is cruel to deny one the relief of mourning when mourning is so often its own relief.” (166). With this both also agreed that sympathy was a necessity to the process, saying “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel… Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.”(166)
ReplyDeleteWith these similarities there also came differences in their individual opinions on the mourning process. Charles Seymour felt that time was the most important part of healing, and that one should look in to religion for relief. This was completely unparallel to Cross' opinions on the matter felling that one should simply vent their sorrow and feelings of anger and pain. Another difference between the two was that Seymour sited his “three specific sources for consolation.” (165). Which included patriotism, sympathy for others and hope in the gospel. These sources were never a part of Cross' opinions or teachings of mourning.
Of the two clergymen I agree with the opinions of Joseph Cross. The fact of the matter is that one should never wrap themselves so tightly in the pain and sorrow of mourning the loss of a loved one. If you engulf yourself in that type of pain it makes it hard to move on and forget. In times of sorrow it is best to focus on what is good in life and move oneself toward that. Not prolonged pain and agony.
In Response to Mark Miller
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree that it’s a good idea to remind mourners that have lost someone that their loved one died for something great. However, I have to disagree that prolonging the mourning process is best, or even healthy. It seems to me that the best thing to do is face this challenge of healing head on and find a way to advance to a brighter day in life. Prolonged pain can never solve a problem.
Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross were two clergymen that shared the same ideas about how to mourn; they believed that you should grieve. Seymour believed that, “time in a measure will help” (165). Robinson declared, that “Patriotism will come in to aid in mitigating the sorrow” (165). Along with Patriotism, Robinson listed “the sympathy of others” and “the sublime hopes of the gospel” as three sources of consolation (165).
ReplyDeleteLike Robinson, Cross believed that, “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Companion is better than counsel…Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.” He stated that “grief must have a vent, or it will break the heart” (166).However, Cross realized that excessive grief was bad thing, stating that it was “criminal when it obscured awareness of remaining mercies” (166).
Of the two, I would have to agree with Cross. He makes some very good points about mourning, but he also knew when to draw the line.
Sarah Welton-
ReplyDeleteYour blog was very well written. I agree with your statement that Cross had a better way of mourning because he said that mourning is important and it should be experienced, but it is unreasonable to keep the grief inside of you. I think that holding in all that sadness would just break you down after awhile, and that is why Cross had a better way of mourning.
Cross and Robinson both had interesting views about how to mourned. Although from different sides, one from the North and one from the South, there were many similarities between the two. The biggest similarity is their connection with Christianity and God. Robinson said that "Finally, and above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you" (page 165). Cross states that "The bereaved must work to alleviate their grief, attending to the solaces of friendship and religion" and "Like Robinson, Cross noted that there was a contained time for mourning with a finite end" (page 166). They also both offered "shared suffering" (page 166) as a solace and they "both promised a gradual end to the agony of loss to be achieved through the work of mourning" (page 166).
ReplyDeleteAlthough there were similarities, there are alos clear differences in their opinions. "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God" (page 165) and "sourcxes of comfort and help", wherease "Cross included with his consolations a series of warnings" (page 166).
Both men had good views about mourning, but I agree with Cross more. Cross taught that "Sorrow was no sin" (page 165) and "Grief must have vent" (page 166). "It was important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it" (page 166). I think it was good that he showed people it is okay to show your emotions and to let it all out. That way, your friends and family can help you grieve and get through it. He also said that "Grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others or become 'indifferent to the public welfare' or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health" (page 166). I also agree with this statement because yes, it is important to grieve, but it is also important to not let the grief take over your life.
Reverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross both had similarities and differences in their views of how to mourn. Both men believed that “sympathy divides the sorrow and leaves but half the load,” (166). A common belief was that there is a time for mourning, and a time where mourning does not need to be outwardly expressed. Also commonly believed was the idea that acknowledging the death and sorrow will help the surviving realize and move past the death. Reverend Charles Seymour preached that time will lessen the pain that you’re feeling over the loss of the departed and that there were three specific sources of consolation: patriotism, sympathy, and religion. Joseph Cross was determined that mourning was a process for recovery, and that the process of mourning should not take an excessive amount of time. He believed “grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others,” (166).
ReplyDeleteIn my own view, I agree with Reverend Charles Seymour’s ideas of how to mourn. I strongly believe that mourning is a very personal process that no one should tell you how to go through it, but guide and give comfort to the mourner. Reverend Charles was one to encourage seeking “comfort and health,” (166), which is how I choose to believe mourning should be handled.
In response to jenni robinson:
ReplyDeleteI agree, "It is also important to not let the grief take over your life." But going through the natural processes of grieving in your own time can only help better your understanding and realization of the loss that has occurred in your life. In a time where death was happening frequently and in large numbers, it would be extremely difficult to suppress it in the manner that Cross suggests for the people to do.
Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross had similarities and differences in their beliefs. Seymour said that "time in a measure will help you" and that "months and years would lessen the first violence of a sudden affliction" He thought that time was the key to acceptance. He also felt that the people who had lost loved ones in the war should be able to, in time, look back and be proud that their dead had sacrificed his life for his country.
ReplyDeleteCross said "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss" He said that grief was okay. "Acceptance of sorrow, he realized, was a critical part of realizing death. It was important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it."
I agree with both of their opinions. Time is the key to getting over the loss of a loved one, but you also should not bottle up your emotions.
In response to Amy Bowman
ReplyDeleteI agree that mourning is a very personal process. Most everyone has a different way of handling it. I personally would not want someone to tell me how to do it. But I would likely want someone to be there to comfort me.
Reverend Charles Seymor Robinson and Joseph Cross were two men living in the same era and through the same war but their visions on grief and mourning were not completely the same. Charles Seymor believed that "time in a measure will help you" (165)and that it would be time which would decrease the "first violence of a sudden affliction" (165). This wise reverend helped soothe the families' pain by offering them the "healing forces of time, nation, community, and God." (165) Meanwhile, Joseph Cross, who was a man from the Tennessee, assured the people attending General Daniel Donelson's funeral oration the "sorrow was no sin" (165). Joseph stated that religion "does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it." He was a firm believer in the Christian faith and human phsycology and felt that these two "nourished" each other and interwinded. The similarities which these two men shared were their deep faith in the Lord and a belief that sympathy plays a great role when trying to overcome grief.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Reverend Charles Seymor because I also feel that time helps lessen the deep pain caused by loosing a relative. He was right to say that it is the "months and years" (165) whcih decrease the initial sorrow and allow you to move on.
Danielle,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because it seems to me that Charles Seymor had some good pints which were probably of much help to the people when he offered them “Patriotism, shared mourning, and hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you"(165). These things he said would come in "to aid in mitigating the sorrow." (165)
Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross, two clergymen on opposite sides of the war, had both comparable and distinct views on the process of mourning. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson of the North focused on “time, nation, community, and God.” (165) He told mourners that “time in a measure will help you” and “you will by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief.” (165) Joseph Cross of the South shared this view. Like Robinson, he told his followers that “there was a contained ‘time for mourning,’ with a finite end.” (166) However, Cross based his process of mourning more on the “solaces of friendship and religion.” (166) He believed “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel . . . Sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.” (166) He meant that to mourn with a comrade would be better than to have sympathy for one. One considerable resemblance between the two clergymen’s mourning processes was that of which involved God. Robinson declared “above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you.” (165) In accord with Robinson, Cross “enumerated biblical mourners . . . to establish the history and legitimacy of grief. Unlike Robinson’s method to mourning, Cross’s was accompanied by warnings. He believed that “grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others or become ‘indifferent to the public welfare’ or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health” (166) and strongly advised against this. Even though the processes of mourning developed by Robinson and Cross differentiated a bit, “both promised a gradual end to the agony of loss to be achieved through the work of mourning.” (166)
ReplyDeleteI would follow Joseph Cross’s ideas on mourning above Charles Seymour’s for one reason. Cross’s process had a touch more reality in it than Robinson’s peaches and cream, time will heal all wounds discourse. “Cross included with his consolations a series of warnings.” (166) Joseph realized that mourning and grief could only be taken so far until they began to destroy the one still living. He gave the warnings he did to mourners because he knew that an “excess of sorrow” (166) could ruin their lives. Seymour never even touches on what to do if enough is enough. Because of Cross’s candid view on the subject, I would be more compelled to follow his word than Seymour’s.
RE: Larissa Davis
ReplyDeleteIt is refreshing to see someone who is brave enough to declare accord with both of these men’s views; I did not have the valiancy to do so. I completely agree with what you wrote about the undying memory of family. “It helps to know that your loved ones will not be forgotten nor will their sacrifices, which is a concept he stressed to his listeners.” I think that you did a great job on summing up all of the valuable views Cross and Robinson demonstrated in their processes of mourning.
The North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross had many similarities and differences. They both had faith in god and both played a large religious role in their communities.
ReplyDeleteOne obvious difference between the two is that one is from the North and one is from the South. Reverend Charles Seyour offered "a primer in grief and consolation" (165). He once said," Time in a measure will help you." Joseph Cross showed the understanding of psychology loss and for what it means to alleviate and explain sorrow.
I agree with the South's Reverend Charles Seyour because he has a better way to mourn. Instead of just waiting for time to do its job and have the griefing finally leave you can vent you mourning in more scientifically correct way. That is through psychology. That can help find out what is going through your mind and from my perspective, would have a better mourning.
I agree with Lauren O'Brien. I think that the South's Joseph Cross had a better idea of mourning than the North's Reverend Charles Seymour. You stated in your blog,"Cross’s process had a touch more reality in it than Robinson’s peaches and cream, time will heal all wounds discourse." I think that statement just about somes up my perspective about this topic. Reverend Charles Seymour just had to simple of an idea for me.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Cross and Charles Seymour had some similarities and some differences in their beliefs of mourning. Both felt that mourning was important when someone died. They were similar because they were also connected to God and Christianity.
ReplyDeleteThe differences between the two were that Cross believed that excessive grief wasn't good, while Seymour felt that time was a very important part of the healing process.
I would agree with Cross's ideas on mourning over Seymour's ideas. I agree because he felt that you should mourn over loved ones but not get wrapped up in it to the point that mourning is all you do.
Erick-
ReplyDeleteI agree with you saying that time helps lessen the pain of losing a loved one, but I don't feel that it needs to take over a person's life.
In response to Larissa,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it “helps to know that your loved ones will not be forgotten nor will their sacrifices”. Although I believe one should mainly rely on oneself to overcome the pain, it’s important to remember those who fought as heroes, and never forget that they gave the ultimate sacrifice to fighting for what they believed in. I also agree that “Cross is definitely right about letting your feelings run their course without denying them.” If people didn’t grieve, they would be filled with so much hatred and despair inside.
Even though Joseph Cross and Charles Seymour Robinson were on different sides during the war, they shared some of the same beliefs and also some differences.
ReplyDeleteBoth believed that God would help ease the pain of losing a loved one. However, this is where their similarities end. Robinson believed that time would heal the pain and you should just wait it out. Cross thought that it was good to vent our yout anger and misery.
Personally, I agree with Robinson. Violence is not the answer, especially in such unstable times as misery. It does not make sense to me that Cross would have people vent out their anger if God was already going to help ease their pain.
Mary Harris
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post, I agree with you. Time is a good way to heal, but you also need to let osme of the pain out.
“How to mourn was often something that had to be learned.” (165) Both clergymen offered ways to help those who had lost someone. Cross felt like one should only mourn for a set period of time, While Seymour felt like one should be able to mourn until they felt it was right. "You will. . . by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief" (165). I agree with both men’s views on mourning. The loss of someone close should be recognized and mourned, but it should not take up someone’s entire life.
ReplyDeleteCharles Seymour and Joseph Cross had similar views about mourninig, such that God would help you through your time of grief. Seymour believed more in sympathy, religion, and time to heal, and Cross thought that releasing your emotions such as anger.
ReplyDeleteSeymour had a more set belief system for healing with time and others sympathy and God. Cross had a more open mind and let people deal with their emotions more on their own and through God.
I believe more in Cross' ideas and beliefs, because everyone is different. Each person has their own way of dealing with their emotions, and "there isno guilt in tears."
Some similarities and differences between the north's reverend charles Seymor and the South's Joseph Cross views about how to mourn are ones such as these.The main similarity they had was they both found relief in god. The others sympathy was also thought to be a healing process between the two men.
ReplyDeleteCharles Robinson focused on the thought that religion was a way to be relieved from a loss and also the idea of time was a focus of his. However, Joseph Cross had the idea that sorrow was no sin. He also had said, "Religion does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it"(166). In my opinion, they both have good reasoning towards their beliefs, but I would have to side with Joseph Cross on this ubject because he did believe that mourning was not just acceptable but encouraged. I completely with him on that, it is better to take your and let it out rather than hold it in.
Although they helped different types of people Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross had similar ways of looking at mourning. Both of these clergymen believed that mourning was a way to overcome the sadness from losing a loved one; as shown, ”Like Robinson-and indeed, like Freud-Cross understood mourning as a process and promised his congregation progress through grief to some measure of recovery.”(166) However much alike they would preach, they also had some different views. While at a funeral for Colonel James M. Green, Charles Seymour said, "time in a measure will help you." God's mercy had provided the "months and years" would lessen the "first violence of a sudden affliction." ... always feel their loss, he acknowledged, and always remember the departed with affection. (165) He also listed three sources of consolation, "... the healing sources of time, nation, community, and God." (165)
ReplyDeleteJoseph Cross had a slight variation of looking at mourning. "Christian Faith and human psychology were in his view deeply intertwined, and each supported and nourished the other."(166) To legitimize grief, Cross would recognize biblical mourners. He also thought there to be no sin in grief, "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss.....religion."(165) Cross, like Robinson also believed suffering to be a solace, “Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel… sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.”
Of the two clergymen, I’d have to agree with Cross’ ideas more because of his quoted comments. Both of these men had similar ideals but Cross’ comments were in my opinion more comforting. He told mourners (basically) that their mourning was natural and would make them stronger. He also comforted them by letting them know that god was with them in their mourning.
Robinson and Cross were both on different sides of the war, which both had different cultures. They both were pastors and both had ideas of how to handle grief, but these ideas were just as different as the two cultures that they were separated by. Robinson believed that "time" was the way to go and expressed that "as the months and years passed, the "first violence of a sudden affliction" would lessen." Cross believed that while you shouldn't ignore the grief that you have, you shouldn't let it hold you back. I side with cross who basically teaches the "best of both worlds."
ReplyDeleteEmily,
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but Cross was not trying to inspire violence by venting, but just trying to show that its best to not let your grief last forever so you should use it to help you move on with your life. I don't see it as venting, but more like using grief as inspiration to move on.
In response to Nick Burns
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your statement, "If someone loses themselves to mourning, they can lose sight of things in their life that they can control." Especially during the Civil War, I feel people who had lost so much, could focus too much on what they lost, not what they still had.
In response to Baker-
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your post, there can not be a time limit to ones mourning. No matter what one believes, everyone is different and handles hardship in their own way. I agree that Cross seamed to be saying faith controlled how long you should mourn. I also believe that time is needed to truly mend the wounds and depression wounds. It is nearly impossible to just let go without the time of which to heal.
In response to Matt Coen
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say, "The quicker a person lets go of the deceased, the faster they will feel solace." Its best to move on in life, rather than continue grieving for a long time.
Brian-
ReplyDeleteWhen you say, "I side with cross who basically teaches the "best of both worlds." Best of both worlds is a very good way of putting Cross' teachings.
Brian-
ReplyDeleteYoure right when you say that cross has the best of both worlds because he has a more open and free method of dealing with grief, and he has no rule of time, and he still encompasses God into his healing beliefs.
Some similarities between Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross’ views about how to mourn were that by grieving people could recover and that sympathy would help people mourn. Robinson offered more sources of comfort and help, whereas Cross warned people about “excess sorrow.” I agree with Robinson more because I don’t think people should have to worry about excess sorrow as they mourn the loss of a loved one.
ReplyDeleteReverend Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross were both from different sides, North and South, but they each believed that mourning was essential to healing the soul from losses, and they both believed that having God in a person's life could help take away much of the pain. However, their beliefs in how to mourn where different. Reverend Charles Seymour believed that time could help to heal, and Joseph Cross believed that venting and letting out the pain could help to heal.
ReplyDeleteI think that both methods can be very effective, and that it just depends on the person dealing with the loss. Everyone is different and everyone deals with loss in a different way. I personally would prefer Cross' method to dealing with loss, because I feel much better when I can let out my feelings and let out some of the pain.
In response to Kurtis Holland-
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with what you stated in your post, especially when you said that, " it is better to take your and let it out rather than hold it in", because that is exactly how I personally feel about mourning and the healing process.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross were both from different parts of the civil war but had the same ideas. They both believed that mourning was an important part of healing from your loss. They also believed that god could also help ease the pain of the loss as well.
ReplyDeleteThey also had differnt ideas. Reverend Robinson believe that time and the sympathy of others could heal the hurt you had. Cross had the idea that you should relieve yourself of the anger and turmoil you had by mourning. He also believed that you should openly grieve but not excess grief.
I agree with Cross because everyone does heal at their own time and pase. But it is hard for most to deal with their pain of the lost loved one and so i believe it is better for them to openly grieve of their pain and to not hold it in.
I agree with Heidi because I am a person that will bottle up most of my angry and frustration. But with Cross's ideas it would help me let out my greif and would help me heal on my own time and not on anyone else's. I think that during this time many people were in the same situtaion.
ReplyDeleteBoth Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson’s and Joseph Cross’s goal was to help people they went about in very different ways. Charles taught that time will heal everything and that one day people will look back on the departed with affection and gratitude. Also that shared mourning was much easier mourning than alone. Joseph said that grief and sorrow was ok and that tears are no crime. So he was saying that sorrow was the only way to get past a death. Both Charles and Joseph believed that faith in religion and god would also help get past a death. Personally both ideas are helpful. I agree with Charles Seymour, that time does eventually heal everything and it helps to look back and think of a lost loved one with respect and gratitude. But I also agree with Cross because sometimes people need to let out their pain rather than keep it in. So I agree with both men.
ReplyDeleteLarissa Davis
ReplyDeleteI agree that both men helped people with grief and that it helps if people remember and never forget what a loved one did for his or her country. I also agree that you must let your feelings run their course and just let them out instead of denying them and keeping them bottled up.