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?
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson recognized that time will help heal the wound that mourners feel at first. "The bereaved would always feel their loss...but you will...be able to look calmly on these days of grief."(pg.165) Patriotism was one of the three sources Robinson thought would console mourners. He said mourners would be able to look back and be proud of the sacrifices soldiers made for them. Sympathy of other people is the second source of consolation. A person can lean on others and the mourning will become easier. The last source Robinson offered was the gospel. "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God."(pg.165) The first thing Joseph Cross mentioned was that "sorrow was no sin"(pg.165) There is absolutely nothing wrong with feeling bad. Cross thought mourners should depend on religion in time of need. "Christian faith and human psychology were in his view deeply intertwined..."(pg.166) Cross thought mourning and grief were the path to recovery. Cross, like Robinson, thought mourners needed sympathy. I agree with Robinson's ideas about mourning more than Cross's. I think Robinson has more practical ideas. Cross just wants the mourners to depend on God to take away the pain. I think the mourners need others there to support them. If the mourners look back and they are proud of the sacrifice then they will not feel so much pain. I think Robinson's ideas would help the mourner work through the pain instead of avoiding it.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson believed that time would help people with their grief. He said, “’you will,’ he assured them, ‘by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief.” (p.165) Robinson also gave three sources of consolation: patriotism, sympathy of others (shared mourning), and “the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you.” (p.165) In regard to patriotism, Robinson said they “would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead.” (p.165) Robinson also said, “shared mourning is easier mourning.” (p.165) Joseph Cross believed sorrow was not a sin. He also thought “Christian faith and human psychology were … deeply intertwined, and each supported and nourished the other.” (p.166) Cross said that it was important to suffer in the face of loss. “Like Robinson … Cross understood mourning as a process and promised his congregation progress through grief to some measure of recovery.” (p.166) Cross, like Robinson, also believed that “sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.” (p.166) Cross believed there was a limit to sorrow: once someone ignored afflictions of others, became indifferent to the public welfare, or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health. The two reverends also believed that there is a definite end to the time of mourning. Finally, Cross also thought that the bereaved must work to alleviate their grief by attending to the solaces of friendship and religion. I agree with Robinson slightly more than with Cross. Cross believed in a more religious approach to assuage grief than Robinson. I think it is more important to deal with grief on your own (with a few other people’s help), but should be left primarily to oneself. Robinson believed more in consolation while Cross mentioned grieving as a crime (in excess). Robinson’s three sources of consolation would help people deal with pain, come to accept it, and in time, make it not as effective as it was (pain, grief).
In the North Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson reminded the mourners that " time in a measure will help you." God's mercy had provided that "months and years" would lessen the " first violence of a sudden affliction."( pg. 165 ) The Reverend believed that the bereaved would always feel their loss and feel the affection that follows the loss of loved ones. He too listed three specific sources of consolation "Patriotism." he declared will come in to aid in migrating the sorrow. The second source of comfort would be the sympathy of others. Shared mourning, he affirmed, was easier mourning. And finally above all the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you. (pg.165) The Reverend believed that time would be the healer. As time is what helps us through grief, as this is what it takes through the support of others. In the South, Joseph Cross of Tennessee believes that sorrow was no sin. (pg 165) Acceptance of sorrow , he recognized, was a critical part of realizing death. It was important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it. " He that is not sensible of the affliction ,'" Cross warned, " will continue secure in his sin.( pg. 166) We must vent grief but yet grief is excessive when it makes the mourner forget the afflictions of others or become " indifferent to the public welfare" or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health. (pg. 166) Cross' belief is that you need to let God heal your sorrow's. In my opinion I agree with Robinson more than I do Cross because in the time of grief you need friends and family just as much as you do God. But Cross believed that God was the main source to deal with grief. In my own life right now as my dad is in hospice I know that I will need my family and friends and my church when he passes. Too Robinson has practical ideas while Cross just depended on God.
A similarity between the North's Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and the South's Joseph Cross' views about how to mourn is that they both believed that you should grieve. Although Robinson said that time would help you stop mourning, "time in a measure will help you." Cross thought that it was important for the mourners to grieve. "Grief must vent, or it will break the heart...It is cruel to deny one the relief of mourning when mourning is so often it's own relief." [pg. 166] A difference between the two Reverends is that Robinson thought that "Patriotism...will come to aid in mitigating the sorrow." [pg. 165] Cross thought that "Compassion is better than counsel...Sympathy divided the sorrow and leaves but half the load." [pg.166] Of the two clergymen I agree with Reverend Robinson's ideas more. I agree more with him because he says that "gospel will be of solace to you." That is what I would want to hear if my husband, brother, or child died in the war. I would also want to hear that I "would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of" my "dead, giving their lives for their country." [pg.165]
Though the two clergymen Seymour and Cross were polar opposites in political opinions, the first being from the North, and the latter from the South, Their counsel though on how to mourn was surprisingly similar. The main point that they both offered was that time would heal. The two preachers differed, however, on a few points. Seymour discussed patriotism which Cross did not. “Robinson [Seymour] offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God.” [165] Cross spoke about how there is a proper amount of grief and how it can be taken too far. “Sorrow, he posited, was ‘criminal’ when it obscured awareness of remaining mercies…Grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others”. [166] Of the two men, I believe that I agree most with Cross from the South. I believe that there is a line between grief and madness, and that especially in a time where the women were holding the families together after sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers had been lost should not be crossed.
Mourning is very important when life is expected to go on after the death of a loved one. Reverend Seymour and Cross’ ideas were very different when deciding the appropriate way to mourn. I agree with Cross’ views as opposed to Seymour’s on grief. I completely agree that, “acceptance of sorrow, … was a critical part of realizing death” (166). When death occurs, grief naturally follows; mourning is a preparation for life without the ones we love. Reverend Seymour’s idea differs from this when he says, “ time… will help you”(165) I think more than time is needed to get through the mourning state, one needs to let all their emotions out before they can become themselves again. If one only waits for the day when his pain will be released, all his emotions will be pent up inside. When emotions are held up over a long period of time there is no way for the emotions to be released in a healthy manner. Cross believed, “grief must have vent, or it will break the heart … mourning is so often it’s own relief.”(166). Of course it will “take time” to grieve but you have to be grieving during that time in order to heal yourself.
"Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson reminded the mourners that time in a measure will help you."{165} "God's mercy had provided that months and years would lessen the first violence." Reverend Robinson basically meant that overcoming sorrow would take time. He also provided "three specific sources of consolation" which included patriotism, sympathy, and "Christ himself."
"Like Robinson, Cross noted that there was a contained time for mourning with a finite end, even though the inward sorrow may last much longer." However, unlike Robinson, Reverend Seymour Cross said that sorrow called for sympathy. He believed that there was a limit to sorrow and grief. This limit occurred when the mourner became unaware of their surroundings. Cross still believed that sorrow was better than forgetting or denial.
I would have to agree with Cross's ideas because he gave people a way to release their emotions.
Mourning was done alot in the cival war because many of peoples loved ones were killed. Reverend Charles Seymour said that "the bereaved would always feel their loss.....and always remember the departed with affection."(165) He pretty much had said that if someone lost someone in the war that thay will always feel some sort of emotion for that persons death. He gave three sourses of consolation. They were patriotism, sympathy for others, and religion. Joseph Cross is similar because he believes religion is a big key in mourning. He is differebt though because he believed there is a limit of of how long people should mourn.
I disagree with you because Cross shouldnt be able to say how long people should mourn. I agrre with Seymor because he aknowleged that a loss will last for a very long time and they should be able to mourn however long they want to.
“How to mourn was often something that had to be learned…” (165) Both Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross offered ways they believed would help people. Reverend Robinson offered the mourners that through time wounds will be healed but three sources would help the heart: Patriotism, “sympathy of others,” (165) and “above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be solace to you.” (165) These lessons he taught were logical in which people could follow: They did not have a certain time in which a mourner should follow but, a few outlooks in which they could use to ease their suffering. Patriotism was especially important in the North since their soldiers fought to save a Union, and won. “In a few years, he assured his listeners, they would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead, giving their lives for their country.” (165) Shared mourning was better because simply, thousands of people were going through the exact same thing. God was very much apart of the culture and therefore was an excellent way for mourners to heal. Joseph Cross’ view to mourners of the South began with “that sorrow was no sin. ‘There is no gilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss…’” (165) Although Cross told that sorrow is okay, he gave grieving time a sort of time limit. He warned his listeners about “excess of sorrow” (166) and how “things could always be worse” (166) Cross believed you should accept the loss, not deny it, and sympathy from others would be a good source. “The bereaved must work to alleviate their grief, attending to solaces of friendship and religion.” (166) Religion too was an outlook offered by Cross. Despite this, Cross strongly warned on too much sorrow. Overall, both Cross and Robinson spoke of similar outlooks that people could use to mourn; “both promised a gradual end to the agony of loss to be achieved through the work of mourning.” (166) Between Cross and Robinson, I agree with Robinson. Cross brings up some excellent points on mourning but I do not believe that grief should have a limit. Everyone grieves differently and it is up to them when they are successfully able to move on: there should not be a limit. I do believe that one should not use grief as an excuse over a long period of time as to why they are not working. Robinson’s methods seemed logical and had offered more ways to mourn. Therefore, I believe Reverend Robinson’s method was better.
I have to disagree on your point that Reverend Cross did not believe that time would heal. “Like Robinson, Cross noted that there was a contained ‘time for mourning’ with a finite end” [166] The difference between the reverends comes in how they approach the mourners. Robinson approached them as people that were wanting to move on with their lives and therefore gave them the counsel that “above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you”. [165] The counsel that Cross gave was to the people who did not want to be consoled yet, the people who just wanted to grieve. “ He began by assuring mourners that sorrow was no sin” [165]
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson of the North and Joseph Cross of the South had different views on mourning, but both helped their followers, and undoubtedly many others, through the grief that accompanied the incredible losses which occurred during the Civil War. Robinson believed that time would alleviate the pain of loss, and he preached this to his followers: "You will. . . by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief" (165). He believed that God's mercy ensured the lessening of grief with time. Robinson also preached that patriotism, community, and religion would help in the grieving process. "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God" (165). He believed that those who had suffered a loss could only let time pass and embrace the sympathy of a close community, the pride of a nation, and the "sublime hopes of the gospel" (165). Joseph Cross of the South advocated mourning to its fullest; he encouraged the use of sorrow and grief as a cathartic experience. He viewed mourning as a form of relief, telling his followers, "Grief must have 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). Similar to Robinson's views, Cross thought grief should be shared with others in a sympathetic community of mourners. Because almost everyone had been touched by death during the war, people with whom to share the burden of loss were not difficult to find. Cross did believe, however, that too much mourning was a sin. "Grief was 'excessive, and therefore criminal,' he repeated, when it ignored God's purposes and consolations" (166). He thought that grief was overdone when it "made the mourner forget the afflictions of others or become 'indifferent to public welfare' or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health" (166). Both he and Robinson believed that there should be a definite end to the period of mourning, and that mourners should "work to alleviate their grief" (166). Though both Robinson and Cross have valid points and psychologically sound ideas, I agree most with Robinson's beliefs about grief. In my limited experiences with loss, I have found that the passage of time makes grief less overwhelming and gradually extinguishes sadness. I think, however, that how one deals with loss varies from person to person; I do not believe either man's ideas are more correct than the other - it all depends on what works for each individual.
Response to Rachel: I think that both Cross and Robinson believed there should be a limit on how long one should mourn. "Like Robinson, Cross noted that there was a contained 'time for mourning,' with a finite end" (166). Both thought there was a specific period for mourning, though Robinson seemed to stress it less than Cross.
Response to Alfredo's response, Cross did not tell people how long they should mourn. He just gave a limit. Robinson was the one who stressed the passage of time, not Cross. You got a little confused.
In response to Abby: Now looking back on the text I agree with you when you say both had a time limit. My point was simply Cross stressed more on the limit which I personally believe was not up to him, but up to the person that was mourning.
Both Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross stressed the importance of a "contained 'time for mourning,' with a finite end." Cross, however, focused more on the importance of grieving in one's life, whereas Robinson focused more on how to overcome it. I tend to agree more with Robinson because he offers a way out of grief rather than just saying that it is not a bad thing. I think that it is important to provide a path out of mourning rather than just say that it is necessary and there is no way out of it. "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God." Cross felt that "Survivors must 'feel the stroke.'" He only offered one source of consolation and that was shared suffering. I just think that if I was mourning, I would rather be given an out than just told that it is necessary.
The basic ideas, or structures, both Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross expressed when they preached about how to mourn share some similarities. They both believed, “that there was a contained time for mourning with a finite end,” (166) and “both promised a gradual end to the agony of loss to be achieved through the work of mourning.” (166) However just because their basic ideas were similar that doesn’t mean all their ideas were the same. Seymour believed there were other options to mourning and “offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God,” (165) or in other words mourning, patriotism, sympathy of others, and the gospel. He believed other practices besides mourning would help ease the pain of a loss. On the other hand Cross encouraged mourning until it produced grief, which was “excessive, and therefore criminal.” (166) He believed “grief must have a vent or it will break the heart,” (166) and that “it is cruel to deny one the relief of mourning.” (166) Of the two I agree with Seymour’s ideas more. I think the best way to move on from a death is to focus on something else whether it be patriotism, friend’s sympathy, or God, focusing your attention on something else helps you recover from a death a lot easier than Cross’ idea of mourning.
"Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson reminded the mourners that "time in a measure will help you." God's mercy had providerd that "months and years" would lessen the "first violence of a sudden affliction." The bereaved would always feel their loss, he acknowledged, and always remember the departed with affection. But "you will," he assured them, "by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief."(pg. 165) Robinson listed three spcific sources of consolation, patriotism, the sympathy of others, and the Gospel. He offered the distressed the healing force of time, nation, community, and God. "In the South, Joesph Cross of Tennessee chose to speak "On Grief" in his funeral oration for General Daniel Donelson. He begun by assuring the mourners that sorrow was no sin. "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of dispair. It is no crime to feel our loss...Religion," he explained, "does not destroy nature but regulated it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it."(pg.165) Cross used Christian faith and human psychology to explain how to mourn. Robinson and Cross agreed that mourning is a process and that through grief, many would recover from sorrow. Another simularity hey had was that they boththought that there "is a "time for mourning" with a finite end, even though the "inward sorrow...may lst much longer than the outward sorrow." I think that even though these are both good ways to mourn i agree more with what Joesph Cross says about "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 it's own relief."(pg. 166) This statement makes a lot of sense to me and this is what I think I agree with most.
In Response to Kaylie Haynes: I agree that Robinson gives a "quick fix" on mournig and that would help someone to finish with their mourning and move on. But, Cross said that their are certain steps one must take to vent and mourn. Both clergymen give ways to make mourning less painful and more simply to understand.
Both the North’s Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross had similar and different views on how to mourn. Cross had one main point on how to mourn, it involved the thought that time will heal your pain. He said that “time in a measure will help you.” And “months and years” would lessen the “first violence of a sudden affliction.”” He had three sub points that came off of this thought. They were the thought of patriotism, shared mourning, and the sympathy of others. He said that because this was such an historic event, that the mourners would look back on the deaths and be proud. And the other two kind of went together. Seymour said that if you mourned in a group, that the sympathy of others would help to heal your emotional pain. On the other hand, the Southern clergyman named Joseph Cross had a slightly different way he taught people how to mourn. He also had three thoughts about the processes of mourning. The first being that it was alright to hurt, and there was no sin in it. But his second point came right off of this one. He said that too much mourning and sorrow was criminal. Cross said that if the mourning “became indifferent to the public welfare” or “neglectful of responsibilities to others” then it was criminal. His third point was that venting would help to ease the mourners’ pain. He, like Seymour, said that group mourning, and in Cross’ case, venting would also help to heal the mourners’ emotions. Of these two men, I think that I agree with the views of Reverend Seymour a bit more than Cross. Seymour seems to be a bit gentler in saying how to overcome the mourners’ pain. But Joseph Cross seems harsher in saying that if one has too much sorrow, then it is criminal and a sin. I feel that if I was in the place of so many Americans during the war, I would have wanted to follow the views of a Reverend that was a bit more personal, and did not tell me that if I was too sad then I would be a criminal.
In response to Kaylie Haynes: Kaylie makes a good point when she says that she likes Seymour’s views more because he states a way to get yourself out of mourning, instead of just saying that mourning is ok, or that if you have too much sorrow you’re a sinner and a criminal. I agree with this point. Along with her, I feel that if I were in the mourners’ situation, and had just lost someone close to me , then I would want a way to stop hurting, and get back to my normal life, instead of my clergyman just saying that it was ok to hurt.
Although Seymour is from the North and Cross is from the South, both had similar views on how to deal with mourning. They also had very different views. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson believed that time would help people feel better eventually about their lost loved one. He stated, "In a few years, they would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead giving their lives for their country." "Time in a measure will help you," is also something Charles preached. Robinson listed three specific sources of consolation: Patriotism, sympathy, and religion. In the South Joseph Cross spoke "on grief." He assured mourners that mourning was no sin. Cross mainly preached about using your religion to get you through tough times. He used examples in the bible of mourning. One example is Abraham mourning for Sarah. Where I disagree with Cross is that he believed that there was a contained time for mourning. This is why I agree more with Seymour because I believe time will hope almost anything. Both men could be seen as polar opposites but both had good arguements.
You said,"I would have to agree with Cross's ideas because he gave people a way to release their emotions." Well in your first paragraph you stated the ideas Seymour gave people a way to release their emotions. Both gave ways to overcome, so saying that Cross's gave ideas and Charles didn't is incorrect. You can agree with Cross's ideas more though and I would understand that a bit more.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Reverend Joseph Cross believed that in time people will heal both agreed that even though people should mourn they should not neglect they're responsibilities to everyone else and them selves. Every one should remember they're lost loved ones but people should also keep up with work. Take some time off but not forever sooner or later a person is going to need money and food. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson says, "time in a measure will help you. God's mercy had provided that "months and years" would lessen the "first violence of a sudden affliction." The bereaved would always feel their loss, he would acknowledged, and always remember the departed with affliction." I believe he was right in time you will get over well not get over but become less affected by the death of someone. A person should always remember the death of a person but they should never cause them selves to be harmed emotionally forever or physically harm themselves. In the event of my self losing someone dear to me. I will always remember them but, not cause myself to get so caught up in the death that I forget that I have responsibilities to myself and others.
Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross both shared similarities and differences in their views on how to mourn. Robinson believed that time heals all wounds and “time in a measure will help you.” From this he believed that comfort would come from three sources. The first source was patriotism where mourning was relieved by the proud sacrifice their soldiers gave to their country. “In a few years, he assured his listeners, they would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead, giving their lives for their country.” His second belief was a source of comfort from others sharing their pain, grief and mourning. The final comfort was that the slain soldier will rise again with Christ. “Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community and God.” In contrast to Robinson’s beliefs, Cross encouraged mourners stating “sorrow was no sin.” He took a more biblical approach to the mourning. “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.” He believed mourning was the only way to stop the grief and sorrow. Of the two men I agree more with Robinson’s approach. He uses more reason and logic to overcome mourners’ pain while cook encourages mourning to vent it out. Having other people to help ease the pain seems more effective than just relying on yourself. His ideas encourage the mourners to accept their soldier’s death instead of avoiding it.
In response to Austin Parr: I agree with Austin Parr that Charles Seymour Robinson seemed the gentler of the two clergymen in his beliefs. He helped the mourners overcome their pain while Cross was harsher in his beliefs. His harsh belief that too much mourning becomes a sin and crime seems cruel to those who lost a family member. He should help ease the pain instead of inflicting more.
In response to Ben Grote: I definitely agree with you that it helps to focus on something else other than the grief while mourning. While Robinson did not encourage people to ignore their grief, he promoted involvement in other activities that would help take their mind off of it. Cross' mentality of allowing mourning could cause people to focus on their grief rather than the way out of it.
Response to Brenna Hjelle The ideas from both men were different but they were also alike. Robinson thought a person would need time, nation, community, and God. Cross believed Religion and grief were needed. I have to disagree with you. Robinson’s ideas were much more practical and a person would be able to deal with their pain more easily. Robinson thought they would need community so they could let their emotions out and have the help they need to get through. With Robinson’s ideas, the emotions would not be held in for a long period of time. They would be spread and supported by loved ones. I think Robinson’s ideas made more sense that Cross’s.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson had said, “Time in a measure will help you.” (165). He made sure to note to the mourners that they would always feel the loss of the loved one, but it would get better with time. Robinson also said that patriotism, the sympathy of others, and the gospel would help with mourning. The South’s Joseph Cross said, “There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss.” (165). Cross felt that, “Acceptance of sorrow was a critical part of realizing death.” (166). Both men knew that mourning was a process, but with a finite end. They also thought that faith and sympathy were very important in mourning. Robinson’s views were different that Cross’ in that Robinson thought time was important while Cross thought sorrow was important. I agree with Cross’s views more because sorrow helps to bring out all of the emotions from inside. It lets everything out and like Cross said, “Grief must have vent, or it will break the heart.” (166).
I disagree with you. I don’t think that reason and logic necessarily helps mourners overcome pain. Cross tries to encourage sorrow as he says, “Grief must have vent or it will break the heart.” (166). He wants the mourners to release the pain they feel inside. Robinson’s views on mourning don’t give vent, but keep the sorrow inside throughout time. Also, both of their views encourage sympathy from others, so the mourner would not be relying on himself. However, you are right that Cross’ views don’t really accept the death. His views do help overcome pain, but he says to use faith, sympathy, and sorrow to overcome the death. None of those help to accept the death. Robinson does use patriotism, sympathy, and faith to help console the mourner. I think that the way Robinson says to use patriotism to console does help to accept the death.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson focuses most on time as an effective healing agent. "'Time in a measure will help you.'" He stated that "'months and years' would lessen the 'first violence of a sudden affliction.'" Besides time, he also says that patriotism, sympathy, and God were the sources of consolation that were needed. Joseph Cross, told mourners that "sorrow was no sin." "Acceptance of sorrow...was a critical part of realizing death." He also understood, like Robinson, that sympathy was an effective way to help ease the sorrow and the grief. However, Cross differed with Robinson about one thing: he "worried about 'excess sorrow'" and thought "grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others." "Grief was 'excessive, and therefore criminal...'" Both Robinson and Cross agreed that a "contained 'time for mourning,' with a finite end" was better than long, drawn out times of mourning. I agree most with Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson, because he acknowledges that sympathy and God, as well as time, will help the mourners to recover most. He doesn't discourage mourning for long periods of time, but says that the "months and years" will be the most help to those left behind.
Whose way of mourning do you agree with? I know that both men had similar views on some things, but on what did they differ? You'll notice in the reading that they both say something about limiting the time for grieving, but Cross is stricter in his opinions that "excess...sorrow" is "criminal".
The North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Reverend Cross both preached on how to deal with mourning and loss differently. Reverend Seymour believed that time heals you pain- "time in a measure will help you" pg. 165. The Reverend preached that with God's mercy, your suffering and sorrow will lessen with "months and years" pg. 165. But, he said you will always feel the loss of your loved one, so remember them with love. Reverend Seymour urged people to connect with their patriotism, religion, and people around them giving their sympathies to help with your grieving. Reverend Joseph Cross' idea was that mourning would relieve the pain from a loss. He said if you don't release your grief, "it will break the heart." Cross preached to accept a loss and use the sympathy from others to help you. Although, Reverend Cross did believe that too much mourning was a sin because you would forget about others around you and their pain. Mourning had a "finite end" to Cross. I agree with both of the reverends because every person mourns in their own way. I believe their is no right or wrong when it comes to mourning. Both Cross and Seymour had good ideas about grief an dealing with it.
Response to Ben- The way you put why you agree with Reverend Seymour- "I think the best way to move on from a death is to focus on something else whether it be patriotism, friend’s sympathy, or God"- made me lean a little more towards his views. You are very right that focusing on those things would help the grief of losing a loved one. But, I still believe in Cross' views that there is no shame in mourning.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross were two clergymen of opposite sides who helped ease the pain of sorrow to mourners. Both men "understood mourning as a process" (pg. 166) and believed that grief will someday reach recovery. "Like Robinson, Cross noted that there was a contained "time for mourning," with a finite end, even though the "inward sorrow...may last longer than the outwar sorrow"" (pg. 166). Although both funeral sermons were alike in broad aspects, they also were different in more specific explanations about sorrow. Reverend Charles Seymour believed that patriotism, sympathy of others, and the sublime hopes of the gospel would be comfort to the mourner. He encouraged his listeners to set their mind to something else besides mourning, and "offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God" (pg. 165). The South's Joseph Cross instead supported the act of sorrow as he quoted, "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair" (pg. 165). While Robinson focused on ways to eventually forget about sorrow, Cross had encouraged his people to accept sorrow. "Acceptance of sorrow, he recognized, was a critical part of realizing death" (pg. 166). I agree most with Reverend Charles Seymour because he wanted mourners to concentrate more on reality and healing, while Joseph Cross wanted mourners to continue the act of sorrow, but without the guilt. Focusing on other things rather than a loss seems less painful and more supporting. Therefore, I mostly agree with Robinson's ideas.
Response to Blake: I agree with your idea that it’s best to overcome a loss by primarily your own efforts, and Robinson’s three sources of consolation encouraged that mentality. Cross’ approach was more strict and structured, whereas Robinson’s approach was less structured which allowed people to get over their loss by their own means, and at their own pace. By giving his congregation options Robinson showed he wanted them to chose their own path towards getting over their loss. Whether people chose Robinson’s suggestions of patriotism, the sympathy of others, or God to get over a loss they all move towards getting over that loss by their own efforts, which in my opinion is the best way to do it.
In response to Nicole. Yes it is very important for people to refocus on their way out of a continuos time of grief and do other things to help them deal and get over their grief and move on. But you are right in that their is no right or wrong way for someone to grieve. Everyone deals with grief in their own way. So I do agree that neither Cross nor Seymour are wrong in their beliefs and we all deal with grief and that there is no rhyme or reason for ways to deal with grief.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson of the North and Joseph Cross of the South were two people that spoke openly about how they think people should mourn. Robinson believed everyone should always remember the dead fondly instead of what mistakes they had made in their life time. He had three sources of consolation, patriotism, sympathy of others, and the gospel. He believed they were living in history and one day they would look back on the war with memories of heroism and sacrifices for the dead. He said it was easier to mourn with friends and family by your side than alone. Finally, “Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God. “ (165) Joseph Cross told people it was no sin to be in sorrow. He believed, “acceptance of sorrow was a critical part of realizing death.” (166) If you do not feel sad when you hear a loved one is gone you do not fully understand their death. He thought mourning of the dead would heal the people faster than denying the process. He agreed with Robinson in the way that it’s best to feel sorrow with others around instead of by yourself. But the process of grieving to Cross and Robinson were different because Cross wanted people to feel sad to get through it while Robinson believed it would help to feel happy about all the good things that the person had lived through in their lifetime. I agree with Cross in the fact it’s acceptable to feel sad however I agree with Robinson more. I don’t think the dead would want people to just feel sad. I think they would want people to celebrate their accomplishments. I also think his three consolations were respectable. They were living through a piece of history and he was right that now we look back and realize how brave the soldiers had been at the time. I think they were both right that it’s always easier to go through hard things with people by your side. Religion was a huge thing at the time and I believed people really relied on it during the war for much more than just the grieving process. But overall I agree with Robinson’s idea of mourning opposed to Cross’s.
In the North, Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson assured him people that their sorrow would heal with the help of three things. These things were patriotism, the sympathy of others, and God's word. In the South, however, Joseph Cross believed that there was only one thing that allowed pain to pass; faith. Cross said, "Religion does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it." (pg. 165-166) Cross is explaining that religion is not the end of what we know, but rather the beginning of what we do not know. Both of these beliefs worked well during the Civil War, however, I agree more with Reverend Robinson. Robinson has three methods that will reduce pain. "Time in a measure will help you." (pg. 165) Although time is the main idea, the three methods within it are what help the pain recede. Patriotism was a consolance for the family that their beloved one died for a true cause. Comfort from others helped to share the sorrow rather than caging it up inside of oneself. Also God's word, the Gospel, that leads one through his life will take away some of the pain. Joseph Cross only believed that religion and faith itself would heal their wounds. I do believe God watches over us but an actual thing on Earth and concrete ideas are needed to provide ultimate consolance. Robinson's method was overall a better process.
Both Seymour and Cross recognized mourning as a process and promised their “congregations progress through grief to some measure of recovery,” (pg 166) and how “the bereaved must work to alleviate the grief,” (pg 166). They agreed that there was a “contained time for mourning,” (pg 166), and that mourning was more a process rather than a state of being or emotion.
Seymour suggested that mitigation of sorrows required three specific actions to be taken by the mourner. The first was to let time pass by. He argued “time in a measure would help [mourners],” (pg 166) by “lessen[ing] the first violence of a sudden affliction,” (pg 165). The second action was to display Patriotism, Seymour reasoning because “it will come to aid,” (pg 165). The third action was to mourn with others, for “shared mourning is easier mourning,” (pg 165).
Cross’ approach was simpler. His suggestions are to embrace mourning to the fullest degree because God really doesn’t care what you do. He claimed “sorrow was no sin,” (pg 166), and that “there is no guilt in tears if they are tears of despair,” (pg 166). He claimed that “it was more important to suffer in the face of loss,” (pg 166), and how “survivors must feel the stroke,” (pg 166). He also emphasized the time restraint more than Seymour.
I think Cross makes a good point, urging others to mourn as deeply as they want until time is up. I think that Seymour’s methods are too specific, and may not help everybody as much as they need it to. I like how Cross stresses the time restraint. A problem that people have today, and I assume back then, is not being able to let go of their losses. If a person did lose a loved one, they can’t bring them back; there is no was to reverse what is done. It’s okay to honor the dead for a little time, but they are dead. This is a survivor's world, and there is a point where it does become too much.
5:2 The North’s Reverend Charles Seymour believed that time, nation, community, and God were the main healing forces (165). He listed three main sources of help for mourning. Patriotism to help get past the sorrow, shared mourning and the sympathy from others, and the thought that the mourner would once again be joined with their family after death (165) He basically believed that mourning would go on as long as it needed to and he helped people get past it by giving those three sources of healing. On the other hand, the South’s Joseph Cross said that there was, “a contained time for mourning,” meaning that he didn’t want people to drag it out because then all of the greif went to the dead and none of the celebration went to the living. He also looked at mourning differently than the North’s Reverend. He said mourning was a relief or a, “vent for grief (166).” Those were some of the differences between the North’s Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and the South’s Joseph Cross. They both believed that mourning was, “no sin,” as Joseph Cross put it on page 166. They both believed that the end of greif came through mourning, that looking back on the death of a soldier would bring pride and that mourning helped people realize that their loved ones really were gone. Those were some of the similarities between the two. Of the two clergymen, I agree with Joseph Cross. He said that if everyone is sad for the people who died, then there is no happiness for the survivors of the war. The survivors deserve celebration of life and end of war, but they came home to sorrow and grief. Joseph Cross also said that there was, “a time for mourning with a finite end (166).” I agree more with Joseph Cross because he said that enough mourning was enough, that too much could do damage, and I agree with him.
I agree with you that Robinson was a little more personal than Cross. Someone who seems to be more understanding, calm, and gentler about mourning is (in my opinion) more likely to be appreciated than one who is not. Besides, who would want to be called a criminal for mourning too long? It is understandable that it is wrong when you forget about others and cannot help and support them, but some people take longer to get over pain than others. A limit to mourning and grief in some cases is simply ridiculous. Suppose a woman has lost her three sons and husband in the war all within a short period of time. It seems entirely plausible for her to mourn longer than other women. If she had to have a limit to mourning, she might have a hard time trying to deal with ordinary life.
In, response to Jenna: I completely agree with you when you said, “sorrow helps to bring out all of the emotions from inside”. I also agreed With Cross’s point of view, he felt that in order to overcome our grief, we must first let the grief out. I thought Cross’s ideas were more personal and instead of thinking about how much time was left to grieve, he believed it was important to let people reflect on their loss and let it all out. I know from personal experience that it is better to let it out than wait it out, in my opinion. I felt like Cross was giving the people permission to mourn, while Robinson was telling them how to express grief.
You say that you would “rather be given an out than just be told [mourning] is necessary.” You make a good point, and, I agree, it would take more than acknowledgement to assist in the mourning process. However, I think that Cross was saying more than just that mourning was necessary. I think he too was focused on the outcome, almost as much as Robinson in a way. In addition to shared mourning, he told that the actions of the mourners are not sinful, which, in itself, helps people get over it because they know that what they’re doing is okay. Just as Robinson enforced patriotism and faith, Cross enforced listening to his words of comfort and faith. Although it’s less direct, I think the two methods are more similar than your post suggests.
Both Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross offered ways that they believed help people mourn. Reverend Charles believed their were three sources that would console mourners. One being Gospel, "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God."(pg.165). God was very much apart of the culture and therefore was an excellent way for mourners to heal. Another source was sympathy of other people. When you are able to re-lye on people then mourning will become easier, since it takes time to be able to move on from the death of a loved one. Patriotism is another source. Mourners would be able to look back and be proud of the sacrifices soldiers made for them. Especially in the north, since their soldiers were fighting to save a union. “In a few years, he assured his listeners, they would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead, giving their lives for their country.” (pg.165). Joseph Cross's view to mourners was that "There is no gilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss…" (165). Although he had said sorrow is okay, he hadn't left very much time for grieving. Cross believed you should accept the loss and without denying it, and that sorrow from others was good. Just as Seymour, Cross had said that religion was a good thing. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross had some of the same outlooks on mourning. Although I agree more with Robinson. I believe that his three sources of consolation would have helped people in mourning better than Cross's. They would help people deal with pain, come to accept it, and in time, make it not as effective as pain and grief would be.
I diagree about how Cross's veiw is better. I believe their should be a time limit to mourning. Although you do make some valid points, if you are in mourning for to long then it would be hard to get out of it and into a new transition.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson believed that there were three sources that would help people in mourning. Patriotism, sympathy of others, and God would help people through mourning. He also believed time had a factor to healing. Joseph Cross also believed that mourners should have time to heal and that they needed sympathy from others. Cross believed that sorrow was not a sin, but if one had it for to long it was bad. He wanted mourners to turn to God for help, too. I think that Reverend Seymour's views on how to mourn. Cross thought you should believe in God to heal you, but I believe that you need more than just God. Charles Seymour gave more reasons to mourners to help them.
I agree with you. Both men used similar techniques to help mourners. They both used God, time, sympathy, and comfort. They both believed that one must mourn, too.
Both the clergymen had some great things they said at funerals. A difference in the two I think are Christian faith. Joseph Cross took a more religious path when adressing the morning families and friends of a dead loved one. "...Religion does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it."(pg165-166) Charles Seymour Robinson said the importance of being together and being able to mourn. He assured his listeners that in a few years, they would look back at their griefing days and realize the countless great sacrifices of their dead, giving thier lives for their country (pg 165) They both said to mourn together "Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel...Sympathy divided the sorrow, and leaves but half the lod." (pg 166) I honestly can not choose between the two, they both make great statements that I agree with and therefore cannot choose one over the other.
Both the North's Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and the South's Joseph Cross' had different views on how to mourn.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson “offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God,” (page 165) or in other words patriotism, shared mourning, and religion as a way to recover from death. He states He found that time played a large role in the process of healing. Robinson strongly believed in remembering the dead fondly, and thinking of what they did to help their nation.
Joseph Cross stated that "sorrow is no sin," (page 166) and that people should feel comfortable mourning, and therefore embrace it because God did not punish those who shed a tear in a time of sorrow. He explained, “there is no guilt in tears if they are tears of despair,” (page 166). Although he did feel that people should mourn freely, he warned that it wasn't healthy to mourn forever.
Both clergymen had points that I agree with, however, I felt that Robinson made a great point that you don't just need God to mourn. Robinson felt that “shared mourning is easier mourning,” (page 165) which I completely agree with. When you have other people who share the same pain as you, you can overcome it together. I think both men made excellent points on mourning, however I I find Robinson's more relatable.
You made a great point, "Reverend Charles Seymour... wanted mourners to concentrate more on reality and healing, while Joseph Cross wanted mourners to continue the act of sorrow, but without the guilt. Focusing on other things rather than a loss seems less painful and more supporting." Charles Seymour Robinson seemed to have a more positive outlook because he explained that to get back to reality you have to focus on the good, such as the nation or God. Although Cross did have a positive idea, focusing on mourning can bring a person down more and never get rid of the sorrow. Good job.
I agree with you that Robinson had a better method in overcoming death because he had more reliable ways. While Cross put all of his faith in Gos, which is good, Robinson explained how it was more healthy for the mind and body to have more that one shoulder to lean on. Overall, Robinson did have a better view on mourning.
In response to David White I have to disagree with you. Religion was a huge thing at the time of the Civil War. Today people rely on more than just God to get them through tough times like the passing of a loved one. But during the time of the Civil War many people believed God would get them through it and that the person who had died was ultimately by the side of God. Robinson also believed in more than God would help them mourn. He also believed that it was people around them and respect for their country that would get them through it.
There were a couple of similarities and differences between North's Charles Seymour Robinson's views on mourning and South's Joseph Cross' views on mourning. Charles Seymour Robinson said that everyone would "by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief" as stated on page 165. Whereas, Joseph Cross stated that "There is no guilt in tears,if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss" also stated on page 165. Robinson's and Cross' opinons on mourning differed in this way. However they both agreed that everyone would feel loss and grief. I mostly agree with Robinson's view of mourning. He seemed to have a more positive outlook on it and being positive always makes things seem better even if they are not. I do agree as well with Cross in that we should not feel shame or guilt from our grief because we all have grief but it is better to be calm about the situation and think positively.
I have to agree with you when you say that you agree with Robinson's views on mourning but not for that reason. Like Jordyn said, religion was very important during the Civil War so therefore stating God was a very important factor for many people in getting through the grief. So i partially agree with Cross' idea of mourning as well, being that religion was a huge deal to many soldiers and their families. Religion would have been enough.
Both of the clergymen said that time, god and sympathy for others would help people through mourning. Reverend Robinson also believed that patriotism would help. Cross puts a time limit on mourning and i don't think that is necessary. So i agree with Robinson more than cross. Cross relies on god to much and you should take as much time as you need to heal.
Reverend Charles Seymour is more of a precise clergyman. He described the steps of mourning with detail, and how they should be acted upon. Reverend Cross was more simpler, he felt that everyone should mourn as long as they should. To him sorrow was a sin.
In my opinion I would have to agree with Reverend Seymour more because he is specific on things, and I am the type of person that needs great detail too make sure I am doing something right. Do not get me wrong.. Simple is good, I just prefer things to be precise with detail.
In their descriptions of grieving, both Robinson and Cross said that grief would be a process that, with time, everyone will get through. They believed that staying close to others and the church would help quicken and alleviate ones grief. However, Robinson also thought that patriotism would help comfort the grieving families. Also, Cross believed that too much sorrow was a bad thing. When sorrow makes you totally uncaring to others and to yourself, then it is destructive and “criminal” (pg.164). I think I agree with Robinson’s ideas, because when you lose someone it is important to turn to other people and also try to remember (in the case of the Civil War or any soldier) they died for their country
Jonah- Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson taught his followers that time would heal the pain of the war's losses. He also told the people to mourn together and continue believing in God. He taught that if they did these three things their pain would be healed. Like Robinson, Cross taught his followers that sorrow was a process and that it must be shown. He also taught the same principle that when people mourn together it is easier for them. Cross's difference was that he thought the healing process should have a time limit. I agree with Cross because mourning for dead is beyond my ability to comprehend. I think it is wasteful of time and a sign of someone who can't live their own life. So I accept that people mourn for died but agree that they should be able to heal in a timely manner.
Jonah- in response to Justine Renfro: I completely agree that whenever anyone goes into a situation with a positive atidtude the outcome will be much better. Also that being calm will help the grief process becuase being too overwelmed by grief will not be helpful.
I agree with you when you say "when you lose someone it is important to turn to other people and also try to remember (in the case of the Civil War or any soldier) they died for their country" that is true. These men gave thier lives fighting for what they believe in. That is a honorable way to die. So it should help people through mourning.
Robinson believed that the only way to heal from a lost loved one is through time. He said that if you mourn together you can heal faster, and that faith in God can help the process as well. Cross believed that the only way to really heal is to keep your faith and mourn with others. He thought that if you mourned for too long, however, that it would just make things worse. I agree with Robinson more, because although you should not mourn forever, you cant really rush mourning, because you can't just pretend that you are not still upset when you are. I think that when you are mourning, you should take as much time as you need to heal.
I agree with what you said about not needing to feel bad about grief. When you lose a loved one, it is not an easy thing to deal with, and you shouldn't feel bad about being upset. I think that you should take as much time as you need to get over your grief.
I disagree with your last few points. I know I can’t change your opinion, but I think that most people in this time needed just that, God. Because they grew up with religion, they felt like they could always be close to Him and He had control. I mean there is only so much a person can provide to make you feel better.
Both Robinson and and Cross believed that people should always mourn for their losses and that god would always be there for them and would help them through their difficult time of mourning. the difference between the two is that Robinson believes that patriotism would help with mourning, and Cross just believes that the passage of time and God will help with mourning. I agree with Robinson because i think that people need more things to do than just wait for their sadness to pass and things like patriotism are a good way to keep your ind off of your mourning.
Both Cross and Robinson stressed that only time will heal loss. Robinson stated, "time in a measure will heal you." (pg 165) Cross said, to the same point, that there was a finite "time for mourning." (pg 166) Here, both agreed. However, they differed in the opinion each held for grieving itself. Robinson stated that many things would help to dissipate grief, such as patriotism, sympathy, and faith. It can be inferred that he thought of grief as a burden that, thankfully, would one day be driven away. Quite contrary to this, Cross believed that "It was important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it," as written on page 166. He thought of mourning as a device to better oneself; he believed one could grow out of despair.
I agree with the sermons of both men. Suffering can be alleviated by pride, sympathy, and the belief that a loved one was in a better place. This, Robinson said. I also agree with Cross's statements that grief was necessary and even helpful. One can learn from suffering yet also choose to ultimately defeat it. In this way, both of the men's teachings are correct.
I believe you are misinterpreting the teachings of Cross. He was not necessarily saying one must turn to God for grief, but mainly making a statement that grief must pass to grow from it. Even if this opinion is not mine, I can see his logic, for mourning is just another cycle of acceptance, and not one to be glazed over. More harm may come of trying to lose grief before one is ready to discard it.
In response to Jenna: I agree with you about how Cross believed sorrow helped the mourning. Because Robinson was all about time and that wasn't enough to end the mourning. If you don't have sorrow then it doesn't matter how much time you take to mourn.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson recognized that time will help heal the wound that mourners feel at first. "The bereaved would always feel their loss...but you will...be able to look calmly on these days of grief."(pg.165) Patriotism was one of the three sources Robinson thought would console mourners. He said mourners would be able to look back and be proud of the sacrifices soldiers made for them. Sympathy of other people is the second source of consolation. A person can lean on others and the mourning will become easier. The last source Robinson offered was the gospel. "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God."(pg.165)
ReplyDeleteThe first thing Joseph Cross mentioned was that "sorrow was no sin"(pg.165) There is absolutely nothing wrong with feeling bad. Cross thought mourners should depend on religion in time of need. "Christian faith and human psychology were in his view deeply intertwined..."(pg.166) Cross thought mourning and grief were the path to recovery. Cross, like Robinson, thought mourners needed sympathy.
I agree with Robinson's ideas about mourning more than Cross's. I think Robinson has more practical ideas. Cross just wants the mourners to depend on God to take away the pain. I think the mourners need others there to support them. If the mourners look back and they are proud of the sacrifice then they will not feel so much pain. I think Robinson's ideas would help the mourner work through the pain instead of avoiding it.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson believed that time would help people with their grief. He said, “’you will,’ he assured them, ‘by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief.” (p.165) Robinson also gave three sources of consolation: patriotism, sympathy of others (shared mourning), and “the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you.” (p.165) In regard to patriotism, Robinson said they “would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead.” (p.165) Robinson also said, “shared mourning is easier mourning.” (p.165)
ReplyDeleteJoseph Cross believed sorrow was not a sin. He also thought “Christian faith and human psychology were … deeply intertwined, and each supported and nourished the other.” (p.166) Cross said that it was important to suffer in the face of loss. “Like Robinson … Cross understood mourning as a process and promised his congregation progress through grief to some measure of recovery.” (p.166) Cross, like Robinson, also believed that “sympathy divides the sorrow, and leaves but half the load.” (p.166) Cross believed there was a limit to sorrow: once someone ignored afflictions of others, became indifferent to the public welfare, or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health. The two reverends also believed that there is a definite end to the time of mourning. Finally, Cross also thought that the bereaved must work to alleviate their grief by attending to the solaces of friendship and religion.
I agree with Robinson slightly more than with Cross. Cross believed in a more religious approach to assuage grief than Robinson. I think it is more important to deal with grief on your own (with a few other people’s help), but should be left primarily to oneself. Robinson believed more in consolation while Cross mentioned grieving as a crime (in excess). Robinson’s three sources of consolation would help people deal with pain, come to accept it, and in time, make it not as effective as it was (pain, grief).
In the North Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson reminded the mourners that " time in a measure will help you." God's mercy had provided that "months and years" would lessen the " first violence of a sudden affliction."( pg. 165 ) The Reverend believed that the bereaved would always feel their loss and feel the affection that follows the loss of loved ones. He too listed three specific sources of consolation "Patriotism." he declared will come in to aid in migrating the sorrow. The second source of comfort would be the sympathy of others. Shared mourning, he affirmed, was easier mourning. And finally above all the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you. (pg.165) The Reverend believed that time would be the healer. As time is what helps us through grief, as this is what it takes through the support of others.
ReplyDeleteIn the South, Joseph Cross of Tennessee believes that sorrow was no sin. (pg 165) Acceptance of sorrow , he recognized, was a critical part of realizing death. It was important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it. " He that is not sensible of the affliction ,'" Cross warned, " will continue secure in his sin.( pg. 166) We must vent grief but yet grief is excessive when it makes the mourner forget the afflictions of others or become " indifferent to the public welfare" or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health. (pg. 166) Cross' belief is that you need to let God heal your sorrow's.
In my opinion I agree with Robinson more than I do Cross because in the time of grief you need friends and family just as much as you do God. But Cross believed that God was the main source to deal with grief. In my own life right now as my dad is in hospice I know that I will need my family and friends and my church when he passes. Too Robinson has practical ideas while Cross just depended on God.
A similarity between the North's Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and the South's Joseph Cross' views about how to mourn is that they both believed that you should grieve. Although Robinson said that time would help you stop mourning, "time in a measure will help you." Cross thought that it was important for the mourners to grieve. "Grief must vent, or it will break the heart...It is cruel to deny one the relief of mourning when mourning is so often it's own relief." [pg. 166] A difference between the two Reverends is that Robinson thought that "Patriotism...will come to aid in mitigating the sorrow." [pg. 165] Cross thought that "Compassion is better than counsel...Sympathy divided the sorrow and leaves but half the load." [pg.166] Of the two clergymen I agree with Reverend Robinson's ideas more. I agree more with him because he says that "gospel will be of solace to you." That is what I would want to hear if my husband, brother, or child died in the war. I would also want to hear that I "would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of" my "dead, giving their lives for their country." [pg.165]
ReplyDeleteThough the two clergymen Seymour and Cross were polar opposites in political opinions, the first being from the North, and the latter from the South, Their counsel though on how to mourn was surprisingly similar. The main point that they both offered was that time would heal. The two preachers differed, however, on a few points. Seymour discussed patriotism which Cross did not. “Robinson [Seymour] offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God.” [165] Cross spoke about how there is a proper amount of grief and how it can be taken too far. “Sorrow, he posited, was ‘criminal’ when it obscured awareness of remaining mercies…Grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others”. [166] Of the two men, I believe that I agree most with Cross from the South. I believe that there is a line between grief and madness, and that especially in a time where the women were holding the families together after sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers had been lost should not be crossed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMourning is very important when life is expected to go on after the death of a loved one.
ReplyDeleteReverend Seymour and Cross’ ideas were very different when deciding the appropriate way to mourn. I agree with Cross’ views as opposed to Seymour’s on grief. I completely agree that, “acceptance of sorrow, … was a critical part of realizing death” (166). When death occurs, grief naturally follows; mourning is a preparation for life without the ones we love. Reverend Seymour’s idea differs from this when he says, “ time… will help you”(165) I think more than time is needed to get through the mourning state, one needs to let all their emotions out before they can become themselves again. If one only waits for the day when his pain will be released, all his emotions will be pent up inside. When emotions are held up over a long period of time there is no way for the emotions to be released in a healthy manner. Cross believed, “grief must have vent, or it will break the heart … mourning is so often it’s own relief.”(166). Of course it will “take time” to grieve but you have to be grieving during that time in order to heal yourself.
"Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson reminded the mourners that time in a measure will help you."{165} "God's mercy had provided that months and years would lessen the first violence." Reverend Robinson basically meant that overcoming sorrow would take time. He also provided "three specific sources of consolation" which included patriotism, sympathy, and "Christ himself."
ReplyDelete"Like Robinson, Cross noted that there was a contained time for mourning with a finite end, even though the inward sorrow may last much longer." However, unlike Robinson, Reverend Seymour Cross said that sorrow called for sympathy. He believed that there was a limit to sorrow and grief. This limit occurred when the mourner became unaware of their surroundings. Cross still believed that sorrow was better than forgetting or denial.
I would have to agree with Cross's ideas because he gave people a way to release their emotions.
Mourning was done alot in the cival war because many of peoples loved ones were killed. Reverend Charles Seymour said that "the bereaved would always feel their loss.....and always remember the departed with affection."(165) He pretty much had said that if someone lost someone in the war that thay will always feel some sort of emotion for that persons death. He gave three sourses of consolation. They were patriotism, sympathy for others, and religion. Joseph Cross is similar because he believes religion is a big key in mourning. He is differebt though because he believed there is a limit of of how long people should mourn.
ReplyDeletein responce to orion
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you because Cross shouldnt be able to say how long people should mourn. I agrre with Seymor because he aknowleged that a loss will last for a very long time and they should be able to mourn however long they want to.
“How to mourn was often something that had to be learned…” (165) Both Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross offered ways they believed would help people. Reverend Robinson offered the mourners that through time wounds will be healed but three sources would help the heart: Patriotism, “sympathy of others,” (165) and “above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be solace to you.” (165) These lessons he taught were logical in which people could follow: They did not have a certain time in which a mourner should follow but, a few outlooks in which they could use to ease their suffering. Patriotism was especially important in the North since their soldiers fought to save a Union, and won. “In a few years, he assured his listeners, they would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead, giving their lives for their country.” (165) Shared mourning was better because simply, thousands of people were going through the exact same thing. God was very much apart of the culture and therefore was an excellent way for mourners to heal.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Cross’ view to mourners of the South began with “that sorrow was no sin. ‘There is no gilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss…’” (165) Although Cross told that sorrow is okay, he gave grieving time a sort of time limit. He warned his listeners about “excess of sorrow” (166) and how “things could always be worse” (166) Cross believed you should accept the loss, not deny it, and sympathy from others would be a good source. “The bereaved must work to alleviate their grief, attending to solaces of friendship and religion.” (166) Religion too was an outlook offered by Cross. Despite this, Cross strongly warned on too much sorrow. Overall, both Cross and Robinson spoke of similar outlooks that people could use to mourn; “both promised a gradual end to the agony of loss to be achieved through the work of mourning.” (166)
Between Cross and Robinson, I agree with Robinson. Cross brings up some excellent points on mourning but I do not believe that grief should have a limit. Everyone grieves differently and it is up to them when they are successfully able to move on: there should not be a limit. I do believe that one should not use grief as an excuse over a long period of time as to why they are not working. Robinson’s methods seemed logical and had offered more ways to mourn. Therefore, I believe Reverend Robinson’s method was better.
I have to disagree on your point that Reverend Cross did not believe that time would heal. “Like Robinson, Cross noted that there was a contained ‘time for mourning’ with a finite end” [166] The difference between the reverends comes in how they approach the mourners. Robinson approached them as people that were wanting to move on with their lives and therefore gave them the counsel that “above all, the sublime hopes of the gospel will be a solace to you”. [165] The counsel that Cross gave was to the people who did not want to be consoled yet, the people who just wanted to grieve. “ He began by assuring mourners that sorrow was no sin” [165]
ReplyDeleteReverend Charles Seymour Robinson of the North and Joseph Cross of the South had different views on mourning, but both helped their followers, and undoubtedly many others, through the grief that accompanied the incredible losses which occurred during the Civil War. Robinson believed that time would alleviate the pain of loss, and he preached this to his followers: "You will. . . by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief" (165). He believed that God's mercy ensured the lessening of grief with time. Robinson also preached that patriotism, community, and religion would help in the grieving process. "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God" (165). He believed that those who had suffered a loss could only let time pass and embrace the sympathy of a close community, the pride of a nation, and the "sublime hopes of the gospel" (165).
ReplyDeleteJoseph Cross of the South advocated mourning to its fullest; he encouraged the use of sorrow and grief as a cathartic experience. He viewed mourning as a form of relief, telling his followers, "Grief must have 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). Similar to Robinson's views, Cross thought grief should be shared with others in a sympathetic community of mourners. Because almost everyone had been touched by death during the war, people with whom to share the burden of loss were not difficult to find. Cross did believe, however, that too much mourning was a sin. "Grief was 'excessive, and therefore criminal,' he repeated, when it ignored God's purposes and consolations" (166). He thought that grief was overdone when it "made the mourner forget the afflictions of others or become 'indifferent to public welfare' or neglectful of responsibilities to others or to personal health" (166). Both he and Robinson believed that there should be a definite end to the period of mourning, and that mourners should "work to alleviate their grief" (166).
Though both Robinson and Cross have valid points and psychologically sound ideas, I agree most with Robinson's beliefs about grief. In my limited experiences with loss, I have found that the passage of time makes grief less overwhelming and gradually extinguishes sadness. I think, however, that how one deals with loss varies from person to person; I do not believe either man's ideas are more correct than the other - it all depends on what works for each individual.
Response to Rachel:
ReplyDeleteI think that both Cross and Robinson believed there should be a limit on how long one should mourn. "Like Robinson, Cross noted that there was a contained 'time for mourning,' with a finite end" (166). Both thought there was a specific period for mourning, though Robinson seemed to stress it less than Cross.
Response to Alfredo's response,
ReplyDeleteCross did not tell people how long they should mourn. He just gave a limit. Robinson was the one who stressed the passage of time, not Cross. You got a little confused.
In response to Abby:
ReplyDeleteNow looking back on the text I agree with you when you say both had a time limit. My point was simply Cross stressed more on the limit which I personally believe was not up to him, but up to the person that was mourning.
Both Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross stressed the importance of a "contained 'time for mourning,' with a finite end." Cross, however, focused more on the importance of grieving in one's life, whereas Robinson focused more on how to overcome it. I tend to agree more with Robinson because he offers a way out of grief rather than just saying that it is not a bad thing. I think that it is important to provide a path out of mourning rather than just say that it is necessary and there is no way out of it. "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God." Cross felt that "Survivors must 'feel the stroke.'" He only offered one source of consolation and that was shared suffering. I just think that if I was mourning, I would rather be given an out than just told that it is necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe basic ideas, or structures, both Charles Seymour and Joseph Cross expressed when they preached about how to mourn share some similarities. They both believed, “that there was a contained time for mourning with a finite end,” (166) and “both promised a gradual end to the agony of loss to be achieved through the work of mourning.” (166) However just because their basic ideas were similar that doesn’t mean all their ideas were the same. Seymour believed there were other options to mourning and “offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God,” (165) or in other words mourning, patriotism, sympathy of others, and the gospel. He believed other practices besides mourning would help ease the pain of a loss. On the other hand Cross encouraged mourning until it produced grief, which was “excessive, and therefore criminal.” (166) He believed “grief must have a vent or it will break the heart,” (166) and that “it is cruel to deny one the relief of mourning.” (166) Of the two I agree with Seymour’s ideas more. I think the best way to move on from a death is to focus on something else whether it be patriotism, friend’s sympathy, or God, focusing your attention on something else helps you recover from a death a lot easier than Cross’ idea of mourning.
ReplyDelete"Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson reminded the mourners that "time in a measure will help you." God's mercy had providerd that "months and years" would lessen the "first violence of a sudden affliction." The bereaved would always feel their loss, he acknowledged, and always remember the departed with affection. But "you will," he assured them, "by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief."(pg. 165) Robinson listed three spcific sources of consolation, patriotism, the sympathy of others, and the Gospel. He offered the distressed the healing force of time, nation, community, and God. "In the South, Joesph Cross of Tennessee chose to speak "On Grief" in his funeral oration for General Daniel Donelson. He begun by assuring the mourners that sorrow was no sin. "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of dispair. It is no crime to feel our loss...Religion," he explained, "does not destroy nature but regulated it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it."(pg.165) Cross used Christian faith and human psychology to explain how to mourn. Robinson and Cross agreed that mourning is a process and that through grief, many would recover from sorrow. Another simularity hey had was that they boththought that there "is a "time for mourning" with a finite end, even though the "inward sorrow...may lst much longer than the outward sorrow." I think that even though these are both good ways to mourn i agree more with what Joesph Cross says about "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 it's own relief."(pg. 166) This statement makes a lot of sense to me and this is what I think I agree with most.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Kaylie Haynes:
ReplyDeleteI agree that Robinson gives a "quick fix" on mournig and that would help someone to finish with their mourning and move on. But, Cross said that their are certain steps one must take to vent and mourn. Both clergymen give ways to make mourning less painful and more simply to understand.
Both the North’s Charles Seymour and the South's Joseph Cross had similar and different views on how to mourn. Cross had one main point on how to mourn, it involved the thought that time will heal your pain. He said that “time in a measure will help you.” And “months and years” would lessen the “first violence of a sudden affliction.”” He had three sub points that came off of this thought. They were the thought of patriotism, shared mourning, and the sympathy of others. He said that because this was such an historic event, that the mourners would look back on the deaths and be proud. And the other two kind of went together. Seymour said that if you mourned in a group, that the sympathy of others would help to heal your emotional pain. On the other hand, the Southern clergyman named Joseph Cross had a slightly different way he taught people how to mourn. He also had three thoughts about the processes of mourning. The first being that it was alright to hurt, and there was no sin in it. But his second point came right off of this one. He said that too much mourning and sorrow was criminal. Cross said that if the mourning “became indifferent to the public welfare” or “neglectful of responsibilities to others” then it was criminal. His third point was that venting would help to ease the mourners’ pain. He, like Seymour, said that group mourning, and in Cross’ case, venting would also help to heal the mourners’ emotions.
ReplyDeleteOf these two men, I think that I agree with the views of Reverend Seymour a bit more than Cross. Seymour seems to be a bit gentler in saying how to overcome the mourners’ pain. But Joseph Cross seems harsher in saying that if one has too much sorrow, then it is criminal and a sin. I feel that if I was in the place of so many Americans during the war, I would have wanted to follow the views of a Reverend that was a bit more personal, and did not tell me that if I was too sad then I would be a criminal.
In response to Kaylie Haynes:
ReplyDeleteKaylie makes a good point when she says that she likes Seymour’s views more because he states a way to get yourself out of mourning, instead of just saying that mourning is ok, or that if you have too much sorrow you’re a sinner and a criminal. I agree with this point. Along with her, I feel that if I were in the mourners’ situation, and had just lost someone close to me , then I would want a way to stop hurting, and get back to my normal life, instead of my clergyman just saying that it was ok to hurt.
Although Seymour is from the North and Cross is from the South, both had similar views on how to deal with mourning. They also had very different views. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson believed that time would help people feel better eventually about their lost loved one. He stated, "In a few years, they would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead giving their lives for their country." "Time in a measure will help you," is also something Charles preached. Robinson listed three specific sources of consolation: Patriotism, sympathy, and religion. In the South Joseph Cross spoke "on grief." He assured mourners that mourning was no sin. Cross mainly preached about using your religion to get you through tough times. He used examples in the bible of mourning. One example is Abraham mourning for Sarah. Where I disagree with Cross is that he believed that there was a contained time for mourning. This is why I agree more with Seymour because I believe time will hope almost anything. Both men could be seen as polar opposites but both had good arguements.
ReplyDeleteTo clear up my opinion on who I agree with, I know that both had a contained time, but Seymour thought that that time was longer than Crosses.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Orion:
ReplyDeleteYou said,"I would have to agree with Cross's ideas because he gave people a way to release their emotions." Well in your first paragraph you stated the ideas Seymour gave people a way to release their emotions. Both gave ways to overcome, so saying that Cross's gave ideas and Charles didn't is incorrect. You can agree with Cross's ideas more though and I would understand that a bit more.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Reverend Joseph Cross believed that in time people will heal both agreed that even though people should mourn they should not neglect they're responsibilities to everyone else and them selves. Every one should remember they're lost loved ones but people should also keep up with work. Take some time off but not forever sooner or later a person is going to need money and food. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson says, "time in a measure will help you. God's mercy had provided that "months and years" would lessen the "first violence of a sudden affliction." The bereaved would always feel their loss, he would acknowledged, and always remember the departed with affliction." I believe he was right in time you will get over well not get over but become less affected by the death of someone. A person should always remember the death of a person but they should never cause them selves to be harmed emotionally forever or physically harm themselves. In the event of my self losing someone dear to me. I will always remember them but, not cause myself to get so caught up in the death that I forget that I have responsibilities to myself and others.
ReplyDeleteCharles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross both shared similarities and differences in their views on how to mourn. Robinson believed that time heals all wounds and “time in a measure will help you.” From this he believed that comfort would come from three sources. The first source was patriotism where mourning was relieved by the proud sacrifice their soldiers gave to their country. “In a few years, he assured his listeners, they would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead, giving their lives for their country.” His second belief was a source of comfort from others sharing their pain, grief and mourning. The final comfort was that the slain soldier will rise again with Christ. “Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community and God.” In contrast to Robinson’s beliefs, Cross encouraged mourners stating “sorrow was no sin.” He took a more biblical approach to the mourning. “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.” He believed mourning was the only way to stop the grief and sorrow. Of the two men I agree more with Robinson’s approach. He uses more reason and logic to overcome mourners’ pain while cook encourages mourning to vent it out. Having other people to help ease the pain seems more effective than just relying on yourself. His ideas encourage the mourners to accept their soldier’s death instead of avoiding it.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Austin Parr:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Austin Parr that Charles Seymour Robinson seemed the gentler of the two clergymen in his beliefs. He helped the mourners overcome their pain while Cross was harsher in his beliefs. His harsh belief that too much mourning becomes a sin and crime seems cruel to those who lost a family member. He should help ease the pain instead of inflicting more.
In response to Ben Grote:
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that it helps to focus on something else other than the grief while mourning. While Robinson did not encourage people to ignore their grief, he promoted involvement in other activities that would help take their mind off of it. Cross' mentality of allowing mourning could cause people to focus on their grief rather than the way out of it.
Response to Brenna Hjelle
ReplyDeleteThe ideas from both men were different but they were also alike. Robinson thought a person would need time, nation, community, and God. Cross believed Religion and grief were needed. I have to disagree with you. Robinson’s ideas were much more practical and a person would be able to deal with their pain more easily. Robinson thought they would need community so they could let their emotions out and have the help they need to get through. With Robinson’s ideas, the emotions would not be held in for a long period of time. They would be spread and supported by loved ones. I think Robinson’s ideas made more sense that Cross’s.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson had said, “Time in a measure will help you.” (165). He made sure to note to the mourners that they would always feel the loss of the loved one, but it would get better with time. Robinson also said that patriotism, the sympathy of others, and the gospel would help with mourning. The South’s Joseph Cross said, “There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss.” (165). Cross felt that, “Acceptance of sorrow was a critical part of realizing death.” (166). Both men knew that mourning was a process, but with a finite end. They also thought that faith and sympathy were very important in mourning. Robinson’s views were different that Cross’ in that Robinson thought time was important while Cross thought sorrow was important. I agree with Cross’s views more because sorrow helps to bring out all of the emotions from inside. It lets everything out and like Cross said, “Grief must have vent, or it will break the heart.” (166).
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tanner,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you. I don’t think that reason and logic necessarily helps mourners overcome pain. Cross tries to encourage sorrow as he says, “Grief must have vent or it will break the heart.” (166). He wants the mourners to release the pain they feel inside. Robinson’s views on mourning don’t give vent, but keep the sorrow inside throughout time. Also, both of their views encourage sympathy from others, so the mourner would not be relying on himself. However, you are right that Cross’ views don’t really accept the death. His views do help overcome pain, but he says to use faith, sympathy, and sorrow to overcome the death. None of those help to accept the death. Robinson does use patriotism, sympathy, and faith to help console the mourner. I think that the way Robinson says to use patriotism to console does help to accept the death.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson focuses most on time as an effective healing agent. "'Time in a measure will help you.'" He stated that "'months and years' would lessen the 'first violence of a sudden affliction.'" Besides time, he also says that patriotism, sympathy, and God were the sources of consolation that were needed. Joseph Cross, told mourners that "sorrow was no sin." "Acceptance of sorrow...was a critical part of realizing death." He also understood, like Robinson, that sympathy was an effective way to help ease the sorrow and the grief. However, Cross differed with Robinson about one thing: he "worried about 'excess sorrow'" and thought "grief was excessive when it made the mourner forget the afflictions of others." "Grief was 'excessive, and therefore criminal...'" Both Robinson and Cross agreed that a "contained 'time for mourning,' with a finite end" was better than long, drawn out times of mourning. I agree most with Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson, because he acknowledges that sympathy and God, as well as time, will help the mourners to recover most. He doesn't discourage mourning for long periods of time, but says that the "months and years" will be the most help to those left behind.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Alfredo:
ReplyDeleteWhose way of mourning do you agree with? I know that both men had similar views on some things, but on what did they differ? You'll notice in the reading that they both say something about limiting the time for grieving, but Cross is stricter in his opinions that "excess...sorrow" is "criminal".
The North's Reverend Charles Seymour and the South's Reverend Cross both preached on how to deal with mourning and loss differently. Reverend Seymour believed that time heals you pain- "time in a measure will help you" pg. 165. The Reverend preached that with God's mercy, your suffering and sorrow will lessen with "months and years" pg. 165. But, he said you will always feel the loss of your loved one, so remember them with love. Reverend Seymour urged people to connect with their patriotism, religion, and people around them giving their sympathies to help with your grieving. Reverend Joseph Cross' idea was that mourning would relieve the pain from a loss. He said if you don't release your grief, "it will break the heart." Cross preached to accept a loss and use the sympathy from others to help you. Although, Reverend Cross did believe that too much mourning was a sin because you would forget about others around you and their pain. Mourning had a "finite end" to Cross.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of the reverends because every person mourns in their own way. I believe their is no right or wrong when it comes to mourning. Both Cross and Seymour had good ideas about grief an dealing with it.
Response to Ben-
ReplyDeleteThe way you put why you agree with Reverend Seymour- "I think the best way to move on from a death is to focus on something else whether it be patriotism, friend’s sympathy, or God"- made me lean a little more towards his views. You are very right that focusing on those things would help the grief of losing a loved one. But, I still believe in Cross' views that there is no shame in mourning.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross were two clergymen of opposite sides who helped ease the pain of sorrow to mourners. Both men "understood mourning as a process" (pg. 166) and believed that grief will someday reach recovery. "Like Robinson, Cross noted that there was a contained "time for mourning," with a finite end, even though the "inward sorrow...may last longer than the outwar sorrow"" (pg. 166). Although both funeral sermons were alike in broad aspects, they also were different in more specific explanations about sorrow. Reverend Charles Seymour believed that patriotism, sympathy of others, and the sublime hopes of the gospel would be comfort to the mourner. He encouraged his listeners to set their mind to something else besides mourning, and "offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God" (pg. 165). The South's Joseph Cross instead supported the act of sorrow as he quoted, "There is no guilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair" (pg. 165). While Robinson focused on ways to eventually forget about sorrow, Cross had encouraged his people to accept sorrow. "Acceptance of sorrow, he recognized, was a critical part of realizing death" (pg. 166). I agree most with Reverend Charles Seymour because he wanted mourners to concentrate more on reality and healing, while Joseph Cross wanted mourners to continue the act of sorrow, but without the guilt. Focusing on other things rather than a loss seems less painful and more supporting. Therefore, I mostly agree with Robinson's ideas.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Blake:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea that it’s best to overcome a loss by primarily your own efforts, and Robinson’s three sources of consolation encouraged that mentality. Cross’ approach was more strict and structured, whereas Robinson’s approach was less structured which allowed people to get over their loss by their own means, and at their own pace. By giving his congregation options Robinson showed he wanted them to chose their own path towards getting over their loss. Whether people chose Robinson’s suggestions of patriotism, the sympathy of others, or God to get over a loss they all move towards getting over that loss by their own efforts, which in my opinion is the best way to do it.
In response to Nicole.
ReplyDeleteYes it is very important for people to refocus on their way out of a continuos time of grief and do other things to help them deal and get over their grief and move on. But you are right in that their is no right or wrong way for someone to grieve. Everyone deals with grief in their own way. So I do agree that neither Cross nor Seymour are wrong in their beliefs and we all deal with grief and that there is no rhyme or reason for ways to deal with grief.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson of the North and Joseph Cross of the South were two people that spoke openly about how they think people should mourn. Robinson believed everyone should always remember the dead fondly instead of what mistakes they had made in their life time. He had three sources of consolation, patriotism, sympathy of others, and the gospel. He believed they were living in history and one day they would look back on the war with memories of heroism and sacrifices for the dead. He said it was easier to mourn with friends and family by your side than alone. Finally, “Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God. “ (165) Joseph Cross told people it was no sin to be in sorrow. He believed, “acceptance of sorrow was a critical part of realizing death.” (166) If you do not feel sad when you hear a loved one is gone you do not fully understand their death. He thought mourning of the dead would heal the people faster than denying the process. He agreed with Robinson in the way that it’s best to feel sorrow with others around instead of by yourself. But the process of grieving to Cross and Robinson were different because Cross wanted people to feel sad to get through it while Robinson believed it would help to feel happy about all the good things that the person had lived through in their lifetime. I agree with Cross in the fact it’s acceptable to feel sad however I agree with Robinson more. I don’t think the dead would want people to just feel sad. I think they would want people to celebrate their accomplishments. I also think his three consolations were respectable. They were living through a piece of history and he was right that now we look back and realize how brave the soldiers had been at the time. I think they were both right that it’s always easier to go through hard things with people by your side. Religion was a huge thing at the time and I believed people really relied on it during the war for much more than just the grieving process. But overall I agree with Robinson’s idea of mourning opposed to Cross’s.
ReplyDeleteIn the North, Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson assured him people that their sorrow would heal with the help of three things. These things were patriotism, the sympathy of others, and God's word. In the South, however, Joseph Cross believed that there was only one thing that allowed pain to pass; faith. Cross said, "Religion does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it." (pg. 165-166) Cross is explaining that religion is not the end of what we know, but rather the beginning of what we do not know. Both of these beliefs worked well during the Civil War, however, I agree more with Reverend Robinson. Robinson has three methods that will reduce pain. "Time in a measure will help you." (pg. 165) Although time is the main idea, the three methods within it are what help the pain recede. Patriotism was a consolance for the family that their beloved one died for a true cause. Comfort from others helped to share the sorrow rather than caging it up inside of oneself. Also God's word, the Gospel, that leads one through his life will take away some of the pain. Joseph Cross only believed that religion and faith itself would heal their wounds. I do believe God watches over us but an actual thing on Earth and concrete ideas are needed to provide ultimate consolance. Robinson's method was overall a better process.
ReplyDeleteBoth Seymour and Cross recognized mourning as a process and promised their “congregations progress through grief to some measure of recovery,” (pg 166) and how “the bereaved must work to alleviate the grief,” (pg 166). They agreed that there was a “contained time for mourning,” (pg 166), and that mourning was more a process rather than a state of being or emotion.
ReplyDeleteSeymour suggested that mitigation of sorrows required three specific actions to be taken by the mourner. The first was to let time pass by. He argued “time in a measure would help [mourners],” (pg 166) by “lessen[ing] the first violence of a sudden affliction,” (pg 165). The second action was to display Patriotism, Seymour reasoning because “it will come to aid,” (pg 165). The third action was to mourn with others, for “shared mourning is easier mourning,” (pg 165).
Cross’ approach was simpler. His suggestions are to embrace mourning to the fullest degree because God really doesn’t care what you do. He claimed “sorrow was no sin,” (pg 166), and that “there is no guilt in tears if they are tears of despair,” (pg 166). He claimed that “it was more important to suffer in the face of loss,” (pg 166), and how “survivors must feel the stroke,” (pg 166). He also emphasized the time restraint more than Seymour.
I think Cross makes a good point, urging others to mourn as deeply as they want until time is up. I think that Seymour’s methods are too specific, and may not help everybody as much as they need it to. I like how Cross stresses the time restraint. A problem that people have today, and I assume back then, is not being able to let go of their losses. If a person did lose a loved one, they can’t bring them back; there is no was to reverse what is done. It’s okay to honor the dead for a little time, but they are dead. This is a survivor's world, and there is a point where it does become too much.
5:2 The North’s Reverend Charles Seymour believed that time, nation, community, and God were the main healing forces (165). He listed three main sources of help for mourning. Patriotism to help get past the sorrow, shared mourning and the sympathy from others, and the thought that the mourner would once again be joined with their family after death (165) He basically believed that mourning would go on as long as it needed to and he helped people get past it by giving those three sources of healing. On the other hand, the South’s Joseph Cross said that there was, “a contained time for mourning,” meaning that he didn’t want people to drag it out because then all of the greif went to the dead and none of the celebration went to the living. He also looked at mourning differently than the North’s Reverend. He said mourning was a relief or a, “vent for grief (166).” Those were some of the differences between the North’s Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and the South’s Joseph Cross. They both believed that mourning was, “no sin,” as Joseph Cross put it on page 166. They both believed that the end of greif came through mourning, that looking back on the death of a soldier would bring pride and that mourning helped people realize that their loved ones really were gone. Those were some of the similarities between the two. Of the two clergymen, I agree with Joseph Cross. He said that if everyone is sad for the people who died, then there is no happiness for the survivors of the war. The survivors deserve celebration of life and end of war, but they came home to sorrow and grief. Joseph Cross also said that there was, “a time for mourning with a finite end (166).” I agree more with Joseph Cross because he said that enough mourning was enough, that too much could do damage, and I agree with him.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Austin:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Robinson was a little more personal than Cross. Someone who seems to be more understanding, calm, and gentler about mourning is (in my opinion) more likely to be appreciated than one who is not. Besides, who would want to be called a criminal for mourning too long? It is understandable that it is wrong when you forget about others and cannot help and support them, but some people take longer to get over pain than others. A limit to mourning and grief in some cases is simply ridiculous. Suppose a woman has lost her three sons and husband in the war all within a short period of time. It seems entirely plausible for her to mourn longer than other women. If she had to have a limit to mourning, she might have a hard time trying to deal with ordinary life.
In, response to Jenna:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you when you said, “sorrow helps to bring out all of the emotions from inside”. I also agreed With Cross’s point of view, he felt that in order to overcome our grief, we must first let the grief out. I thought Cross’s ideas were more personal and instead of thinking about how much time was left to grieve, he believed it was important to let people reflect on their loss and let it all out. I know from personal experience that it is better to let it out than wait it out, in my opinion. I felt like Cross was giving the people permission to mourn, while Robinson was telling them how to express grief.
Response to Kaylie Haynes:
ReplyDeleteYou say that you would “rather be given an out than just be told [mourning] is necessary.” You make a good point, and, I agree, it would take more than acknowledgement to assist in the mourning process. However, I think that Cross was saying more than just that mourning was necessary. I think he too was focused on the outcome, almost as much as Robinson in a way. In addition to shared mourning, he told that the actions of the mourners are not sinful, which, in itself, helps people get over it because they know that what they’re doing is okay. Just as Robinson enforced patriotism and faith, Cross enforced listening to his words of comfort and faith. Although it’s less direct, I think the two methods are more similar than your post suggests.
Both Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross offered ways that they believed help people mourn. Reverend Charles believed their were three sources that would console mourners. One being Gospel, "Robinson offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God."(pg.165). God was very much apart of the culture and therefore was an excellent way for mourners to heal. Another source was sympathy of other people. When you are able to re-lye on people then mourning will become easier, since it takes time to be able to move on from the death of a loved one. Patriotism is another source. Mourners would be able to look back and be proud of the sacrifices soldiers made for them. Especially in the north, since their soldiers were fighting to save a union. “In a few years, he assured his listeners, they would look back and proudly recount the sacrifices of their dead, giving their lives for their country.” (pg.165).
ReplyDeleteJoseph Cross's view to mourners was that "There is no gilt in tears, if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss…" (165). Although he had said sorrow is okay, he hadn't left very much time for grieving. Cross believed you should accept the loss and without denying it, and that sorrow from others was good. Just as Seymour, Cross had said that religion was a good thing. Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and Joseph Cross had some of the same outlooks on mourning. Although I agree more with Robinson. I believe that his three sources of consolation would have helped people in mourning better than Cross's. They would help people deal with pain, come to accept it, and in time, make it not as effective as pain and grief would be.
In response to Brenna:
ReplyDeleteI diagree about how Cross's veiw is better. I believe their should be a time limit to mourning. Although you do make some valid points, if you are in mourning for to long then it would be hard to get out of it and into a new transition.
Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson believed that there were three sources that would help people in mourning. Patriotism, sympathy of others, and God would help people through mourning. He also believed time had a factor to healing.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Cross also believed that mourners should have time to heal and that they needed sympathy from others. Cross believed that sorrow was not a sin, but if one had it for to long it was bad. He wanted mourners to turn to God for help, too.
I think that Reverend Seymour's views on how to mourn. Cross thought you should believe in God to heal you, but I believe that you need more than just God. Charles Seymour gave more reasons to mourners to help them.
In response to Cameron:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Both men used similar techniques to help mourners. They both used God, time, sympathy, and comfort. They both believed that one must mourn, too.
Both the clergymen had some great things they said at funerals. A difference in the two I think are Christian faith. Joseph Cross took a more religious path when adressing the morning families and friends of a dead loved one. "...Religion does not destroy nature, but regulates it, does not remove sorrow, but sanctifies it."(pg165-166) Charles Seymour Robinson said the importance of being together and being able to mourn. He assured his listeners that in a few years, they would look back at their griefing days and realize the countless great sacrifices of their dead, giving thier lives for their country (pg 165) They both said to mourn together "Sorrow calls for sympathy. Compassion is better than counsel...Sympathy divided the sorrow, and leaves but half the lod." (pg 166) I honestly can not choose between the two, they both make great statements that I agree with and therefore cannot choose one over the other.
ReplyDeleteBoth the North's Reverend Charles Seymour Robinson and the South's Joseph Cross' had different views on how to mourn.
ReplyDeleteReverend Charles Seymour Robinson “offered the distressed the healing forces of time, nation, community, and God,” (page 165) or in other words patriotism, shared mourning, and religion as a way to recover from death. He states He found that time played a large role in the process of healing. Robinson strongly believed in remembering the dead fondly, and thinking of what they did to help their nation.
Joseph Cross stated that "sorrow is no sin," (page 166) and that people should feel comfortable mourning, and therefore embrace it because God did not punish those who shed a tear in a time of sorrow. He explained, “there is no guilt in tears if they are tears of despair,” (page 166). Although he did feel that people should mourn freely, he warned that it wasn't healthy to mourn forever.
Both clergymen had points that I agree with, however, I felt that Robinson made a great point that you don't just need God to mourn. Robinson felt that “shared mourning is easier mourning,” (page 165) which I completely agree with. When you have other people who share the same pain as you, you can overcome it together. I think both men made excellent points on mourning, however I I find Robinson's more relatable.
In response to leephan:
ReplyDeleteYou made a great point, "Reverend Charles Seymour... wanted mourners to concentrate more on reality and healing, while Joseph Cross wanted mourners to continue the act of sorrow, but without the guilt. Focusing on other things rather than a loss seems less painful and more supporting." Charles Seymour Robinson seemed to have a more positive outlook because he explained that to get back to reality you have to focus on the good, such as the nation or God. Although Cross did have a positive idea, focusing on mourning can bring a person down more and never get rid of the sorrow. Good job.
In response to Sophia:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Robinson had a better method in overcoming death because he had more reliable ways. While Cross put all of his faith in Gos, which is good, Robinson explained how it was more healthy for the mind and body to have more that one shoulder to lean on. Overall, Robinson did have a better view on mourning.
In response to David White
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you. Religion was a huge thing at the time of the Civil War. Today people rely on more than just God to get them through tough times like the passing of a loved one. But during the time of the Civil War many people believed God would get them through it and that the person who had died was ultimately by the side of God. Robinson also believed in more than God would help them mourn. He also believed that it was people around them and respect for their country that would get them through it.
There were a couple of similarities and differences between North's Charles Seymour Robinson's views on mourning and South's Joseph Cross' views on mourning. Charles Seymour Robinson said that everyone would "by and by be able to look calmly on these days of grief" as stated on page 165. Whereas, Joseph Cross stated that "There is no guilt in tears,if they are not tears of despair. It is no crime to feel our loss" also stated on page 165. Robinson's and Cross' opinons on mourning differed in this way. However they both agreed that everyone would feel loss and grief. I mostly agree with Robinson's view of mourning. He seemed to have a more positive outlook on it and being positive always makes things seem better even if they are not. I do agree as well with Cross in that we should not feel shame or guilt from our grief because we all have grief but it is better to be calm about the situation and think positively.
ReplyDeleteIn response to David:
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you when you say that you agree with Robinson's views on mourning but not for that reason. Like Jordyn said, religion was very important during the Civil War so therefore stating God was a very important factor for many people in getting through the grief. So i partially agree with Cross' idea of mourning as well, being that religion was a huge deal to many soldiers and their families. Religion would have been enough.
Both of the clergymen said that time, god and sympathy for others would help people through mourning. Reverend Robinson also believed that patriotism would help. Cross puts a time limit on mourning and i don't think that is necessary. So i agree with Robinson more than cross. Cross relies on god to much and you should take as much time as you need to heal.
ReplyDeleteReverend Charles Seymour is more of a precise clergyman. He described the steps of mourning with detail, and how they should be acted upon. Reverend Cross was more simpler, he felt that everyone should mourn as long as they should. To him sorrow was a sin.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I would have to agree with Reverend Seymour more because he is specific on things, and I am the type of person that needs great detail too make sure I am doing something right. Do not get me wrong.. Simple is good, I just prefer things to be precise with detail.
In their descriptions of grieving, both Robinson and Cross said that grief would be a process that, with time, everyone will get through. They believed that staying close to others and the church would help quicken and alleviate ones grief. However, Robinson also thought that patriotism would help comfort the grieving families. Also, Cross believed that too much sorrow was a bad thing. When sorrow makes you totally uncaring to others and to yourself, then it is destructive and “criminal” (pg.164). I think I agree with Robinson’s ideas, because when you lose someone it is important to turn to other people and also try to remember (in the case of the Civil War or any soldier) they died for their country
ReplyDeleteJonah-
ReplyDeleteReverend Charles Seymour Robinson taught his followers that time would heal the pain of the war's losses. He also told the people to mourn together and continue believing in God. He taught that if they did these three things their pain would be healed. Like Robinson, Cross taught his followers that sorrow was a process and that it must be shown. He also taught the same principle that when people mourn together it is easier for them. Cross's difference was that he thought the healing process should have a time limit. I agree with Cross because mourning for dead is beyond my ability to comprehend. I think it is wasteful of time and a sign of someone who can't live their own life. So I accept that people mourn for died but agree that they should be able to heal in a timely manner.
Jonah- in response to Justine Renfro:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that whenever anyone goes into a situation with a positive atidtude the outcome will be much better. Also that being calm will help the grief process becuase being too overwelmed by grief will not be helpful.
In response to Steven,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say "when you lose someone it is important to turn to other people and also try to remember (in the case of the Civil War or any soldier) they died for their country" that is true. These men gave thier lives fighting for what they believe in. That is a honorable way to die. So it should help people through mourning.
Robinson believed that the only way to heal from a lost loved one is through time. He said that if you mourn together you can heal faster, and that faith in God can help the process as well. Cross believed that the only way to really heal is to keep your faith and mourn with others. He thought that if you mourned for too long, however, that it would just make things worse. I agree with Robinson more, because although you should not mourn forever, you cant really rush mourning, because you can't just pretend that you are not still upset when you are. I think that when you are mourning, you should take as much time as you need to heal.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Justine:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about not needing to feel bad about grief. When you lose a loved one, it is not an easy thing to deal with, and you shouldn't feel bad about being upset. I think that you should take as much time as you need to get over your grief.
In response to David White
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your last few points. I know I can’t change your opinion, but I think that most people in this time needed just that, God. Because they grew up with religion, they felt like they could always be close to Him and He had control. I mean there is only so much a person can provide to make you feel better.
Both Robinson and and Cross believed that people should always mourn for their losses and that god would always be there for them and would help them through their difficult time of mourning. the difference between the two is that Robinson believes that patriotism would help with mourning, and Cross just believes that the passage of time and God will help with mourning. I agree with Robinson because i think that people need more things to do than just wait for their sadness to pass and things like patriotism are a good way to keep your ind off of your mourning.
ReplyDeleteBoth Cross and Robinson stressed that only time will heal loss. Robinson stated, "time in a measure will heal you." (pg 165) Cross said, to the same point, that there was a finite "time for mourning." (pg 166) Here, both agreed. However, they differed in the opinion each held for grieving itself. Robinson stated that many things would help to dissipate grief, such as patriotism, sympathy, and faith. It can be inferred that he thought of grief as a burden that, thankfully, would one day be driven away. Quite contrary to this, Cross believed that "It was important to suffer in the face of loss, not to deny or suppress it," as written on page 166. He thought of mourning as a device to better oneself; he believed one could grow out of despair.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sermons of both men. Suffering can be alleviated by pride, sympathy, and the belief that a loved one was in a better place. This, Robinson said. I also agree with Cross's statements that grief was necessary and even helpful. One can learn from suffering yet also choose to ultimately defeat it. In this way, both of the men's teachings are correct.
In response to David White,
ReplyDeleteI believe you are misinterpreting the teachings of Cross. He was not necessarily saying one must turn to God for grief, but mainly making a statement that grief must pass to grow from it. Even if this opinion is not mine, I can see his logic, for mourning is just another cycle of acceptance, and not one to be glazed over. More harm may come of trying to lose grief before one is ready to discard it.
In response to Jenna:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about how Cross believed sorrow helped the mourning. Because Robinson was all about time and that wasn't enough to end the mourning. If you don't have sorrow then it doesn't matter how much time you take to mourn.