Morning of the First Resurrection and Caring for Deceased Children during Millennium

[classylady]

What's your understanding of the Morning of the First Resurrection? Is it a one time event?  A time frame where individuals are resurrected prior to another event? Is it prior to the Millennium, occurring during the Millennium, or after the Millennium? Or all of the above?

Now, the reason I ask. I'm a little cloudy on how children who die young will be raised by their righteous parents during the Millennium. What's your take on this? I'm assuming parents will also need to be resurrected in order to raise their children? Am I off base in my thinking and what I've been taught? Or, is it not during the Millennium that the children will be raised? Thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I should probably refresh my memory before I answer...(but I'm not going to  )   My understanding is that the Morning of the First Resurrection started right after the Savior was resurrected.  Other righteous people were resurrected at that time.  I think it continues until the the beginning of the Millennium (because anyone that lives during the Millennium will live to the age of a tree and then be changed in the twinkling of an eye...thus not needing resurrection.)   

In short,  I think all the just will be resurrection you speak of has already begun and will continue until the Second Coming.  Then it will be done. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

My understanding is that the Morning of the First Resurrection started right after the Savior was resurrected.  Other righteous people were resurrected at that time.  I think it continues until the the beginning of the Millennium (because anyone that lives during the Millennium will live to the age of a tree and then be changed in the twinkling of an eye...thus not needing resurrection.)   

In short,  I think all the just will be resurrection you speak of has already begun and will continue until the Second Coming.  Then it will be done. 

This is more or less my understanding. The scriptures, especially the Doctrine and Covenants, set this doctrine out, but our specific understanding of these things seems to be based on the teachings and understandings of the apostles. I don't know of any verse of scripture that teaches, for example, that the resurrection of all the celestial dead will take place right at the beginning of the Millennial era. The "changing in the twinkling of an eye", whatever that means, is without doubt a resurrection of some sort, but since the person will not "sleep in death", the root meaning of "resurrect" ("to rise again") might be considered inapplicable. To me, this is hair-splitting, but whatever.

[zil]

My understanding is similar.  I have to wonder if, while people won't "sleep in death", if they won't die (just not for long enough to call it sleep).  I have my suspicions that death is technically required.  But:

38 minutes ago, Vort said:

To me, this is hair-splitting

...and I hear they have special shampoos and conditioners to help with this.

[mordorbund]

Here's a good visual: https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/32499/32499_000_032_01-resurrection.pdf

And Doctrines of the Gospel student manual has a chapter on resurrection and judgment.

The morning of the first resurrection is not a matter of when so much as what glory.

The quotes I'm aware of concerning mothers raising their young children who died refer to this happening in the morning of the first resurrection - not during the Millennium. I think the Millennium will be a time when resurrected beings (including the Savior) visit to assist in administration from time to time, but I don't think they dwell here then (their inheritance is a celestialized earth - not a terrestrialized one).

Regarding the splitting hairs debate, I love this summation: " Everyone passes through death, but some will not have to rent a burial plot."

[The Folk Prophet]

18 hours ago, mordorbund said:

The quotes I'm aware of concerning mothers raising their young children who died refer to this happening in the morning of the first resurrection - not during the Millennium. I think the Millennium will be a time when resurrected beings (including the Savior) visit to assist in administration from time to time, but I don't think they dwell here then (their inheritance is a celestialized earth - not a terrestrialized one).

I'm not sure where the thinking that Christ will only "visit" during the millennium comes from. Source?

As to the "not during the millenium" idea...the last paragraph quoted in the Ask Gramps link says: "Elder Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine indicated that to us the morning of the first resurrection, the resurrection of the just, will come with the return of our Lord and the commencement of his millennial reign. "

[The Folk Prophet]

Incidentally, it is my opinion that the concept of raising children who have died in the millennium -- or whenever -- is a prime example of folk doctrine.

Edited February 28, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

 

Quote

Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that the infant child that was laid away in death would come up in the resurrection as a child; and, pointing to the mother of a lifeless child, he said to her: “You will have the joy, the pleasure, and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of its spirit.” There is restitution, there is growth, there is development, after the resurrection from death. I love this truth. It speaks volumes of happiness, of joy and gratitude to my soul. Thank the Lord he has revealed these principles to us.

Quote

Joseph F. Smith said: Would we be satisfied to see the children we bury in their infancy remain as children only, throughout the countless ages of eternity? No! Neither would the spirits that did possess the tabernacles of our children be satisfied to remain in that condition. But we know our children will not be compelled to remain as a child in stature always, for it was revealed from God, the fountain of truth, through Joseph Smith the prophet, in this dispensation, that in the resurrection of the dead the child that was buried in its infancy will come up in the form of the child that it was when it was laid down; then it will begin to develop. From the day of the resurrection, the body will develop until it reaches the full measure of the stature of its spirit, whether it be male or female. If the spirit possessed the intelligence of God and the aspirations of mortal souls, it could not be satisfied with anything less than this.

Both quotes are from the manual The Teachings of Joseph F. Smith.  The whole lesson is really beautiful.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-15?lang=eng

Edited February 29, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Jojo Bags]

The first resurrection are those who attain the Terrestrial Kingdom.  The  morning of the first resurrection are those who attain the Celestial Kingdom.

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure where the thinking that Christ will only "visit" during the millennium comes from. Source?

“That Jesus will be a resident on the earth a thousand [years] with the Saints is not the case, but will reign over the Saints and come down and instruct, as he did the five hundred brethren [see 1 Corinthians 15:6], and those of the first resurrection will also reign with him over the Saints.” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 21: The Second Coming and the Millennium).

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As to the "not during the millenium" idea...the last paragraph quoted in the Ask Gramps link says: "Elder Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine indicated that to us the morning of the first resurrection, the resurrection of the just, will come with the return of our Lord and the commencement of his millennial reign. "

That's when it gets kicked off in earnest. But tell me, if Peter or James or Moroni lost an infant child (perhaps that's why Moroni included that epistle) are they (did they) already raising it?  If so, where? Do they dwell somewhere here on this earth? Or are they already dwelling in the paradisiacal (millennial) earth?

They've already been resurrected. They've received of the morning of the first resurrection (which, again, is a glory not a day - or, if you want to refer to it as a period, is actually bimodal with humps at the resurrection and return of Christ and a slow taper for the following thousand years).

What I'm reading is that rearing deceased children is a right of those who inherit celestial glory. And I'm not seeing that resurrected beings are counted among the population of the Millennial earth. So I don't think it proper to say that this is among the work of the Millennium.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

“That Jesus will be a resident on the earth a thousand [years] with the Saints is not the case, but will reign over the Saints and come down and instruct, as he did the five hundred brethren [see 1 Corinthians 15:6], and those of the first resurrection will also reign with him over the Saints.” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 21: The Second Coming and the Millennium).

Cool.

I had thought it seems contrary to the Article of Faith: "10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory." But I guess that doesn't say "during the Millennium".

13 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

That's when it gets kicked off in earnest. But tell me, if Peter or James or Moroni lost an infant child (perhaps that's why Moroni included that epistle) are they (did they) already raising it?  If so, where? Do they dwell somewhere here on this earth? Or are they already dwelling in the paradisiacal (millennial) earth?

They've already been resurrected. They've received of the morning of the first resurrection (which, again, is a glory not a day - or, if you want to refer to it as a period, is actually bimodal with humps at the resurrection and return of Christ and a slow taper for the following thousand years).

As I implied (though I believe I was properly corrected in calling it "folk" doctrine by @LiterateParakeet) I don't believe in this doctrinal idea. So...

14 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

What I'm reading is that rearing deceased children is a right of those who inherit celestial glory. And I'm not seeing that resurrected beings are counted among the population of the Millennial earth. So I don't think it proper to say that this is among the work of the Millennium.

If the rearing of deceased children is a thing, then this makes a great deal of sense to me. Obvious even.

[mordorbund]

On 2/29/2016 at 10:23 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I had thought it seems contrary to the Article of Faith: "10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory." But I guess that doesn't say "during the Millennium".

It does seem contrary, and I find a little humor that the Article of Faith is included in the same section of the same lesson. I think it analogous to the Lord being the "keeper of the gate, and employeth no servant there" - except he does! 12 Apostles and 12 disciples! and a prophet of the restoration!

[classylady]

Thanks for the replies.  So, what I'm understanding is if righteous parents are allowed to raise their deceased children after resurrection, it won't necessarily be during the Millennium. It can be occurring now, in the past, and in the future. We don't have the particulars of where. We do know that Saints were resurrected at the time of the Savior's resurrection, and if allowed to raise their resurrected children, this has already been happening.

[mordorbund]

On 3/1/2016 at 1:43 PM, classylady said:

Thanks for the replies.  So, what I'm understanding is if righteous parents are allowed to raise their deceased children after resurrection, it won't necessarily be during the Millennium. It can be occurring now, in the past, and in the future. We don't have the particulars of where. We do know that Saints were resurrected at the time of the Savior's resurrection, and if allowed to raise their resurrected children, this has already been happening.

I would say that's a good place to start. As you can see from the sources cited (or not!) that we're trying to draw a line through a scatterplot that consists of only 3 or 4 points.

I would remain open to new ideas and promptings from the Spirit, especially if this is something you find yourself pondering often.

[The Folk Prophet]

Here's why I have a problem with this "doctrine" of raising children that died. It seems entirely inconsistent as to fairness across the board.

As the simplest example, take parents who die and thereby lose their children. Do they get to raise their children? No. Their children will grow up in the world with someone else and will not be relegated to children again to be re-raised.

What about a couple who was unable to have children?

It gets more complicated, but I think those examples suffice as to the problems I see with the idea.

[Vort]

We do not know all things. Sometimes it seems as if we do not know anything, but that is not true. We should avoid such cynicism. We have been given some truths. That we do not understand how a parent will be allowed to rear a child who has died, and that we do not see the equity in a parent being able to raise a child who died but a parent who died not being able to raise the child at all -- these do not mean the teaching is false.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

We do not know all things. Sometimes it seems as if we do not know anything, but that is not true. We should avoid such cynicism. We have been given some truths. That we do not understand how a parent will be allowed to rear a child who has died, and that we do not see the equity in a parent being able to raise a child who died but a parent who died not being able to raise the child at all -- these do not mean the teaching is false.

I don't believe "cynicism" is the right word at all. The plain fact is that the early prophets and apostles had a variety of views on these matters that don't all gel. This is one that, logically, to my mind, doesn't make sense. If there were a true unified voice on it, I'd let my logical understanding go. As there has not been...I simply tend to think it inaccurate. I could further explain my thoughts, etc., on the matter, but I'm not sure it's important either way (which is a great deal why I am comfortable thinking it inaccurate). The correctness of the idea or not simply does not matter. We'll see when we see. But I have my opinion.

[Blackmarch]

On February 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, classylady said:

What's your understanding of the Morning of the First Resurrection? Is it a one time event?  A time frame where individuals are resurrected prior to another event? Is it prior to the Millennium, occurring during the Millennium, or after the Millennium? Or all of the above?

Now, the reason I ask. I'm a little cloudy on how children who die young will be raised by their righteous parents during the Millennium. What's your take on this? I'm assuming parents will also need to be resurrected in order to raise their children? Am I off base in my thinking and what I've been taught? Or, is it not during the Millennium that the children will be raised? Thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

The first resurrection started with christs resurrection and if i recall right goes on through the first major resurrection event which starts with in the apocalypse or at the tail end of it, however it will not end until the second major resurrection event that occurs shortly before the final judgement at the end of the millenium.

 

If a parent has made the right choices and are worthy to have their family, then i can see God working the resurrection schedule so that parents can be parents and raise their children(whatever that would be like in the millenium). That would be just.

I have no idea if children are resurrected as children or not.

 

[LeSellers]

11 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

I have no idea if children are resurrected as children or not.

Joseph Smith said they would be, and that worthy mothers and fathers would be able to raise them to adulthood.

Good enough for me.

Lehi

[Guest]

I was actually just reading about this in the Gospel Essentials manual (it was sitting outside the bishop's office as I was waiting for my daughter to have her interview for entering Mia Maids). Part of promise of the Millennium is that children will grow up without sin, because Satan will be bound. 

What children would those be? 

[classylady]

There will be people living on the earth during the Millennium. They will be born and live to a good age and then die and I believe changed in a twinkling. Those children born during the Millennium will not be subject to Satan's temptations because Satan will be bound.

Edit:  I sort of envy those Spirits who will be born during the Millennium. They won't be subject to Satan's temptations like we are.

Edited March 6, 2016 by classylady

[Blackmarch]

53 minutes ago, classylady said:

There will be people living on the earth during the Millennium. They will be born and live to a good age and then die and I believe changed in a twinkling. Those children born during the Millennium will not be subject to Satan's temptations because Satan will be bound.

Edit:  I sort of envy those Spirits who will be born during the Millennium. They won't be subject to Satan's temptations like we are.

Not till the end of the millenium anyways. But ya kind of envious as well

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

I was actually just reading about this in the Gospel Essentials manual (it was sitting outside the bishop's office as I was waiting for my daughter to have her interview for entering Mia Maids). Part of promise of the Millennium is that children will grow up without sin, because Satan will be bound. 

What children would those be? 

58 minutes ago, classylady said:

There will be people living on the earth during the Millennium. They will be born and live to a good age and then die and I believe changed in a twinkling. Those children born during the Millennium will not be subject to Satan's temptations because Satan will be bound.

Edit:  I sort of envy those Spirits who will be born during the Millennium. They won't be subject to Satan's temptations like we are.

11 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

Not till the end of the millenium anyways. But ya kind of envious as well

I know of no scripture to back this up, but in our Institute class a couple of weeks ago, the instructor said that all those born during (and not too long before) will still be subject to the temptations of Satan and that many of them, in spite of their thousand years of spiritual peace, fall to those temptations.

I wonder if we should envy them, since they will not have developed an "immune system".

Lehi

[Blackmarch]

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I know of no scripture to back this up, but in our Institute class a couple of weeks ago, the instructor said that all those born during (and not too long before) will still be subject to the temptations of Satan and that many of them, in spite of their thousand years of spiritual peace, fall to those temptations.

I wonder if we should envy them, since they will not have developed an "immune system".

Lehi

Thats why i said "kind of" it both has its pros and cons. D&C 88. 110-115

[zil]

I've never heard anyone teach that there will be no temptation during the millennium, but rather, that Satan would be bound - and he would be bound by the righteousness of the people living in that time.  This implies not that there won't be temptations, but rather that the temptations will be ignored (until near the end).  Thus, if you want to live that way now, you can, just resist temptation.

(In yet other words: I don't think the millennium will be easier, I think the people will be stronger.)

Doctrinal Commentary by Zil - worth every penny you paid for it.

Edited March 21, 2016 by zil
than > that