Phizzy, I thought my post made clear that I agree that the WT was describing not the resurrection of the person, but rather the creation of a copy/clone, including an implanted copy of the memory of the person. But here is something interesting: a number of science fiction stories of the "Outer Limits" TV show have the same idea, but with a human scientist making the recreation instead of God. In the stories there is sometimes a happy ending, providing nothing goes wrong in the replication process (and one tries to kill the recreated person). In the stories with the happy endings the ones who are near death are hopeful of being recreated-resurrected. After they are recreated they are happy about being recreated and think of themselves as being resurrected. Usually the recreation is in a robotic body, but sometimes it is in a human body. The endings tend to be happy when it is in an human body, and when a android gets recreated as an android. Maybe the Sci-Fi writers of these stories got the idea from the WT doctrine of resurrection.
Bobcat makes a good point that the body we currently have is a copy (but with modifications) of the body we had several years ago, and the WT mentions essentially that in their literature. I wish I could remember which specific book where the WT says such very explicitly. He is also right about what he said of a PBS Nova episode; I know that because I saw the same episode and that segment of the episode about the transporter stuck in my mind. However that episode also dealt with the philosophical issue of whether the copy was or wasn't the same person as the original. Philosophers are not in agreement in this matter.
We experience an ongoing process of cellular death and recreation/copying. We are thus already a clone of a prior version of our self. In as sense, we have already been recreated/resurrected! Maybe the key part of us which we identify the most with is the data of our mind and software program of our mind, along with the characteristics of our fleshy body. Maybe some of us can be satisfied with the idea that our data and mental program will be preserved and later implanted into a body which has a very close resemblance to our current body, with the newer body becoming youthful and perfect over time. Many of us, if a part of our body fails are willing to receive an organ transplant from another body (one of a different person) to replace failed body part. Once it is inside their body, they likely consider it a part of themselves. The hair I have on my head is not the same hair I had several months ago; is a copy of the hair I formerly had (though in many cases grown from the 'same' hair root (or skin cluster?). The outermost skin cells I have are not the ones I had months ago, for my prior ones have been sloughed off and are now dead and decayed. When my body gets wounded, including severely wounded, I very much appreciate it when it heals. The healed portion I consider to be a part of me, even though it is only a copy of that which had become damaged.
If I could believe in such a re-creation/resurrection (in sense of the data/characteristics of myself being preserved and used to make a copy of my whole being) I might could be satisfied with it since I would know that my knowledge and talents and personality would be preserved and that together they would have the opportunity to try to accomplish that which I will not have accomplished prior to my death.
I don't think the term Doppelganger is appropriate for the WT concept of resurrection due to two reasons. My impression is the same as that stated in the following quotes from Wikipedia. 1) "In fiction a fiction and mythology, a doppelgänger is often portrayed as a
ghostly or paranormal phenomenon and usually seen as a harbinger of bad
luck. Other traditions and stories equate a doppelgänger with an evil
twin." The WT resurrection does not have any of those characteristics. 2) "A doppelgänger is a biologically unrelated look-alike, or a double, of a living person. [See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelg%C3%A4nger .] If by "living person" one means the person who was copied would still exist during the same time (or part of the time) the copy exists, then that is different from the WT idea. In the WT the one who dies no longer exists as a person at the same the copy exists. Instead the surviving remains of the dead person is likely used as some of the materials in the construction of the copy; with the rest of the material having already become part of something else (such as having been incorporated into the body of an organism which ate it). One won't see the dead person's body lying around at the same time one sees a living copy of the pre-dead person.