35 votes

Little Girl's Dog Passes On to Heaven - Sends Letter To God - Receives Reply!

A letter from the Post Office.

We don't know who replied, but there is a beautiful soul working in the dead letter office who understands LOVE..........................
Our 14-year-old dog Abbey died last month.

The day after she passed away my 4-year-old daughter Meredith was
crying and talking about how much she missed Abbey.

She asked if we could write a letter to God so that when Abbey got to
heaven, God would recognize her.

I told her that I thought that we could, so she dictated these words:

Dear God,
Will you please take care of my dog?
Abbey died yesterday and is with you in heaven.
I miss her very much.

I 'm happy that you let me have her as my dog even though she got sick.
I hope you will play with her.
She likes to swim and play with balls.

I am sending a picture of her so when you see her you will know that she is my dog.

I really miss her.
Love, Meredith

We put the letter in an envelope with a picture of Abbey & Meredith,
addressed it to God/Heaven.

We put our return address on it.

Meredith pasted several stamps on the front of the envelope because she
said it would take lots of stamps to get the letter all the way to heaven.
That afternoon she dropped it into the letter box at the post office.

A few days later, she asked if God had gotten the letter yet.
I told her that I thought He had.

Yesterday, there was a package wrapped in gold paper on our front porch
addressed, 'To Meredith' in an unfamiliar hand.

Meredith opened it.
Inside was a book by Mr. Rogers called, 'When a Pet Dies.'

Taped to the inside front cover was the letter we had written to God
in its opened envelope.

On the opposite page was the picture of Abbey & Meredith and this note:

Dear Meredith,

Abbey arrived safely in heaven. Having the picture was a big help and I
recognized her right away.

Abbey isn't sick anymore.
Her spirit is here with me just like it stays in your heart.

Abbey loved being your dog.

Since we don't need our bodies in heaven, I don't have any pockets to
keep your picture in so I'm sending it back to you in this little book for
you to keep and have something to remember Abbey by.

Thank you for the beautiful letter and thank your mother for helping you
write it and sending it to me.

What a wonderful mother you have. I picked her especially for you.

I send my blessings every day and remember that I love you very much.

By the way, I'm easy to find.
I am wherever there is love.

Love,
God




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
wolfe's picture

So...

That postal worker, really is god?

The mother really believed the letter to be from god?

These are not unknown facts. The letter was not from god, nor did the mother believe it to be.

Therefore, lies. That's not gall, that's reason.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

What 's YOUR solution

oh master of single parents? Slap a little sense into the child whose imagination is threatening YOUR belief system?

Why don't you just say what YOU would have done, with YOUR daughter, instead of calling strangers liars who believe in God and would like their children to. Then just leave it be instead of getting your shorts all in a twist?

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

wolfe's picture

Read below.

My statements were misunderstood, and R_Michael pointed out to me how my statements were being perceived. Please read those below.

I was NOT taking exception to the mother telling her child that their dog had gone to heaven. I was taking issue with the postal worker's behavior and subsequent actions by the mother.

In comments below, I explain how I dealt with it with my daughter.

Link to the relevant comments below:
http://www.dailypaul.com/271013#comment-2916991

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Did you ever think

that maybe the person was lying to satisfy the emotional needs of the child s/he sent the letter to?

The downvoted post talked about love being real, it didn't say "I'm sure glad that little kid got duped!"

All I'm saying is that perhaps a little bit of perspective is needed here, including yours.

A signature used to be here!

wolfe's picture

I am a parent...

Having raised my daughter by myself.

I didn't lie to her about Santa Claus. I didn't lie to her about anything even when it made life uncomfortable for me.

When you lie to a child about death, you are doing several things.

1) Preventing them from learning how to cope with death.
2) Teaching them to believe in the absurd.
3) Trying to avoid supporting them through the emotional pain.

Lying is always the cowards way out. No matter what you want to call it.

I don't mean to sound so uber critical, but this is a sore spot with me and people doing this.

They want special credit for being cowards. Feel free to disagree but I voted it down because I do not believe this is, as the comment stated: "Great testament to love".

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

OK Wolfe

would you please explain to all of us just how you became an expert on how to deal with death.

Preventing them how to cope with death.
What is death? Do you personally know what happens after death. If you don't then how do you teach someone to cope with it.

Teaching them to believe in the absurd
What is absurd? Believing in God, or maybe that the spirit lives on. Again How do you know it doesn't?

Trying to avoid supporting them through emotional pain.
I like this one the best. Since the dog is gone I'm sure that nothing the mother does can stop the emotional pain. Maybe there is something beyond our own self righteous reality.

There are names for people like you wolfe. For some reason Pompous comes to mind

wolfe's picture

Hmmm...

I will avoid your insults and just answer your questions.

I am not an expert on death, nor did I claim to be. I do however believe it is wrong to lie to people, including(especially) children, regardless of a person's intentions.

If someone believes in heaven and teaches that to their children, that is their business. That is not what I was referring. The postal worker was the one who lied, and impersonated god (a horrible sin in every religion that I am aware of). Then to further compound this lie, the mother followed up by allowing her child to believe the absurd notion that god had written a letter and sent her a book. This distorts reality.

Unless of course you are telling me that you believe the postal worker really was god?

The mother condoned and participated in this "gift from god" to avoid explaining the truth, which is that WE don't hear from people/pets that have died (despite religious beliefs), and that the letter had come from the dead letter office and NOT god.

If the mother believes in heaven, and wants to pass that belief on, that is her business. But if she participates in manufacturing evidence to support that belief, then that is a willful lie and deception.

There is a name for people like me. Someone who respects children.

And I would like to take a moment to point something out, not that anyone will actually read this far but:

I taught my daughter how I believed (atheist), and let her be exposed to whatever other religious beliefs that she was interested in. Around 8 she decided that she wanted to be christian so I took my daughter to her church every Sunday, and participated in activities, despite the fact that I don't believe it and would be personally harassed at times for my beliefs.

THAT is respecting your child. How would you handle it if your child decided your beliefs were full of crap and wanted something different? Would you actively support him/her, or merely tolerate it, or not even allow it as most people behave.

So you need to stop making rude assumptions about people that you know nothing about.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

tell me

what do you think this little girl will remember later on as an adult. We all know that at some point in her life she'll know how final death is at least in our 3D reality.

I'm sure she and her family will sit around and talk about this someday. I am also pretty sure it was not a postal worker but someone in her family that sent this. Either way there was no lasting emotional harm done in telling this half lie.

Everything you write is so dam judgmental like this is some kind of trail. Can we not allow our little children to hold on to some dreams and fantasy.

wolfe's picture

It does do lasting harm...

And that is the point I am trying to make.

Comfort them, love them, care for them, but NEVER lie to them.

It does a lot of lasting harm, and if you are interested in why I believe this, I will gladly answer. If you don't really care, and simply disagree with me, then I will let it drop.

So, you tell me if you want the long version, or not... :)

Edit: Btw, I am not actually judgmental at all. If you notice, I never criticize someone for their beliefs or "general" actions. I get critical when I see someone doing harm to someone else, especially children, since they have limited ability to protect themselves in our current society.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

No Wolfe

I am not interested in feeding your ego. Far be it from me to challenge your perfection.

So now this has risen to child abuse.

You know what Wolfe, you are the perfect example of this younger generations attitude of intolerance. Life is not so cut and dry. Sometimes protecting little kids involves shielding them from the harsh realities of life, and yes even if it means telling a lie once in a while.

wolfe's picture

lol...

I did not call it child abuse. You did that, and then proceeded to argue against yourself.

If instead, you took a moment of interest in someone elses perspective instead of calling names, or throwing out your various insults, you might not come across as close minded and arrogant.

In addition, I am not a member of the "younger" generation. Yet another baseless assumption on your part. I have two full grown children.

And no, warping a child's perception of reality is not sparing them from anything. But, you don't want to hear the other side, and nothing can be done about that.

So have a good night.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

reply

I can understand your point about parents lying to their kids (not my problem/place but I get it), but please explain to me how a person writing this letter is an act of cowardice? Remember, It's not the letter writer's place to tell the kid the truth about death and religion and such, that is the parents' job. Seems to me like the parents want the kid to believe in God, and the person who responded figured they go with it to make the kid feel a little less pain.

Also, I don't recall anyone asking for "special credit".

I don't buy into any of that stuff myself, but I think you're blowing this a bit out of proportion. Like I say, try looking at it from a different perspective. Or we can just agree to disagree, whatever.

A signature used to be here!

wolfe's picture

We can do both.

I can explain my point of view and we can still disagree. I am not trying to convince you, but I will break down how I see this story a little more clearly:

Postal Worker Theory:
1) Postal worker get's emotional satisfaction from the lie, by calling it altruism.
2) Mother has her story validated, and so chooses not to explain the "dead letter office" to her child to escape the personal difficulty and questions that would be asked of her.

Mother Theory:
The mother, deciding she needed justification and validation of things she had told her child decided to manufacture "evidence" to help her escape the very real need to teach her child coping mechanisms and about life and death.

So however I view it:
1) Mother = coward
2) Postal Worker(?) = self involved without -real- compassion.

And both are indeed asking for "special credit". Every time either the mother or postal is praised here, that is them getting "special credit". Telling the story is asking for that "special credit".

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Hmm..

The mother theory is interesting, and if that did turn out to be the case, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. Like I say, it's a parent's job to teach their kid that kind of stuff.

However, if it were some random postal worker, how can you or I say for sure *why* they did it or what they felt?

Also, just because people on here are praising the letter writer, doesn't mean it was requested. Do you know how the letter got people's attention, because I do not. If the person went around yapping about it like they saved the planet, I could agree there (seen it many times..we all have), but unless and until I know for sure, I simply cannot base an assumption on anything other than the information in front of me.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm enjoying the discussion actually.

A signature used to be here!

wolfe's picture

You correctly pointed out two assumptions that I made.

(And the rest of this is simply because you said you were enjoying the mental exercise, as am I :) )

First: Postal work motive.
Second: Source of the story.

I think they are reasonable assumptions, and I will explain why, but that is assuming facts that are not available and so you have me on that.

Motive: In all religions that I know of, it is a sin, a horrible one, to impersonate god and pretend to speak for him/her/it. So I make the assumption that the postal worker is committing this sin because she in some way believes she is helping (a bit of a busy body if you ask me.. :) ). If she believes she is helping, then what would motivate her to help? Most people are motivated to help based on the -feeling- it gives them. If she then is doing this is for that -feeling-, then it is an act of selfishness, not selflessness.

Source:
The story, in most probability is pure fiction, but if we take it at face value, then it can only have come from one of three places as it's original source. Only 3 people were originally aware of the events. Postal worker, mother, and child. Since, I believe it is safe to assume that the child didn't write the story that leaves 2.

If the mother is telling the story, then that could in fact be considered not a "demand for attention", but then is simply her causing to be praised someone who lied. So I will award this point to you, but still, I find that motivation for sourcing the story distasteful at best.

The third, the Postal Worker retelling of the story, is unlikely since the events post sending the book would have been unknown to her.

So you have me on source, but I think I win motive... :)

I have to run. Late for dinner, but I always enjoy an analytical discussion, even over this sort of thing, so thank you... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Good response

If it was the postal worker who did it, yeah I suppose I can agree that it's a busy-body sort of thing to do, regardless of intent.

If it was the mother, than I can agree that she was trying to seek praise from her kid, but I'd still (like to) believe that comforting the child was a first priority (which I base on nothing, I admit).

Enjoyed the conversation, we've had a few before I believe. Always went very politely. Have a nice meal! (I had Cheerios...lazy day)

A signature used to be here!

wow...

What a wonderful person to take the time to respond to this hurting little girl...

how wonderful and heartwarming...

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

omg

beautiful

I am a 60 year old goat...

I am a 60 year old goat and I have had many wonderful pets all my life, this brought tears to my eyes and many memories. This was a wonderful thing to do for the little girl.It is nice to know that there are still kind and caring people out there.

RickStone

jrd3820's picture

Wait,

You're a goat?

Would you prefer...

Would prefer an "old fart" ? Those are some of the nicer things I have been called.

RickStone

jrd3820's picture

lol

I never thought of 60 as an old fart or a goat, but either way... to each their own sir.

An Honest Analysis of the Story

"What a wonderful mother you have. I picked her especially for you."

This line smacks of bias.
And is the snag found in this tangled web of lies.

Don't jump on me thinking I am making some kind of argument against the existence of God - I do not make that argument.
But, please, hear me out as a child who once asked questions and never stopped asking questions in a pursuit for knowledge.
When people would do stuff like this to me as a kid all it did was make me distrustful.
This is where I am today: Critical of authorities, media, etc.

So, with this in mind let's look at this story critically.

First off, there's no compelling evidence that Meredith ever existed. This entire post seems to be beyond what would be written of a 4 year old. The possibility that Meredith exists is there, but it is unlikely. So right away I am more skeptical than convinced. As of right now Meredith and Abbey are simply concepts imagined whilst reading the story written by an adult that has an agenda.

Secondly, the picture of Meredith & Abbey is concept only at this point. No picture was posted with this story. To me it exists as concept only, so I will treat it as purely imaginary, which seems to coincide with the probability that both Meredith and Abbey never existed.

Now, there appears to be an actual book titled "When a Pet Dies" by Fred Rogers (aka Mr. Rogers) and it is verified by multiple sources that I have examined online. I have not gone beyond that, but for now that satisfies my skepticism and I will accept that this book actually does exist. But this existence is an independent existence, that is it may exist outside the possibility of the existence of Meredith and Abbey. Those two characters of the story are still purely conceptual, though there may be real books we are describing they may have nothing to do with any dead dog.

The package they received in the story was apparently physical, it could be manipulated, opened, examined, etc, yet God claimed the picture could not be kept because heaven is a non-physical place where non-physical entities have non-physical bodies and therefore no pockets to keep physical photos in. This brings into question how non-physical entities can have physical photos delivered to them and manipulated physically to be sent back.
If this story has any truth behind it then it would take a physical body to physically manipulate that physical letter and physical package. The characters are:
1) the dead dog
2) the duped girl
3) the mother

This reminds me of the movie "Throw Momma From the Train" in which Owen writes a murder mystery with only three characters, one of which is the victim. Here we have the exact same story - the same element in both the movie and this story makes for comedic effect, so should I be laughing at this?
Well, we have our culprit in this story:
The mother did it.

But what are her motives?
All actions are manifest due to simple machinations of thought. We are motivated by desires and fears.
We can simply brush this off as a mother's desire to comfort her child if motivated by desire.
But if the motive is due to fear then it is an act brought about through the feelings of guilt. What would the mother have to feel guilty over? Maybe there should be an autopsy? We may just find out some interesting details (notice the cause of the dog's death was never brought into the story outside that the child was to believe it got "sick").

No matter the motives of the mother, whether real or imagined, what we have here is a story of authority which penned the media and this is the only side we have been allowed to see. This same authority (real or imagined) is the culprit of the story, the character who lied to their child, committed fraud, forgery, and took the role of "God".
This, I think, is despicable to put oneself in the role of God and is not unlike the antichrist described in Revelations of the abomination of desolation who sits upon his throne and claims to be the one most high.
Utterly contemptible.
The child, if real, will eventually find out the truth, just as the rest of us have. And when that day comes, may the one true God have mercy on your soul.

QUIT PRETENDING YOU ARE GOD, MOM, YOU MEGALOMANIAC!

Not actually taking this as seriously as the end of the post may seem, it is for dramatic effect, so don't give me any guff about my attitude, haha. This post was simply made to offer an alternative view.

I Sincerely Apologize...

to the hundreds of children I duped into believing Santa Claus existed. Over a 7 year period, when I was a young adult, I worked as a volunteer with my local post office to answer children's letters. A also answered a few letters to the Easter Bunny. The letters that were written from "needing" children were kept in a special pile to be given to another group of people who did their best to meet the needs of that particular family. I would "adopt" one of those needing families myself each year.

Thanks

The needy children would probably be very happy with your apology for playing your role in duping them. May God have mercy on your soul and send you a bountiful amount of Mr. Roger books.

I'm pretty sure

the post was satire.

wolfe's picture

Nope...

And only those still predisposed to lying and twisting a child's mind would think so.

It was an analytical break down of the foolishness which "warms" all those hearts here.

Do you know what warms my heart? Being honest with those people I love and care about.

So you know what makes me sick? People who get off on and emotional about lying to children.

If I am wrong, and the reply was satire, then, in my mind, it still does on awesome job of showing how lying is not beneficial to anyone.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

As for children, I think you

As for children, I think you would agree there is a difference between telling comforting lies and not offering every ugly truth when their maturity level is unable to emotionally process the information rationally. "Grandma is dead, and so she no longer exists honey. The entity formerly known as Grandma is presently breaking down into its constituent elements and being absorbed by the surrounding environment. Insects, worms and even bacteria are helpful in this process. Run along to bed now."
Perhaps conceding that would make your post here seem less Vulcan and more human. I'm just saying...

There is also the sticky issue of telling a child something you believe to be the truth, while others think it is a comforting lie - "Grandma is in heaven with Jesus". A lie is telling someone something you know to be untrue. Telling them something you believe to be true, even when you cannot prove it, is not a lie.

Having said that, No doubt writing a letter posing as God is indeed telling something you know to be untrue.. and thus, a LIE.

wolfe's picture

I agree with your statements (with one exception).

First, I agree that telling someone what you believe to true, whether it is true or not, is not a lie. Hence, I do not take issue with the mother originally telling the child that the dog has gone to heaven. Nor, do I take issue with my parents raising me christian, because it was what they believed to be true.

Second, I will agree that it is important to comfort a child, and not go into unnecessary detail that would be disturbing. But I do not think there is such thing as comforting lie.

For instance, consoling my child that her cats were gone and couldn't come back, I was gentle and thoughtful, but I never told her something that I believed to be untrue to comfort her.

I keep getting drawn back into this but am running very late for dinner... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Well said Wolfe. I have

Well said Wolfe. I have always had a warm regard for your intellect, even when we have butted heads in the distant past.