Pure Ephraimite, AmIRight?

Brigham Young famously described Joseph Smith as "a pure Ephraimite." Likewise it is emphasized in the Book of Mormon itself that Joseph Smith is from Joseph of old (coming through Ephraim, as must needs be every president of the Church). This is a critical piece to the Ezekiel 37 prophecy, which describes a stick of Judah (Bible) and stick of Ephraim (Book of Mormon) coming together as scripture. 

There's just one problem. 

Joseph Smith Jr. was most likely not Jewish. Instead he was assuredly Irish. Northwest Irish to be exact.

But that's okay, because Ephraim wasn't always considered Jewish either. He was born of an Egyptian mother (Asenath) and he, along with his brother, Manasseh, had to be adopted into the 12 Tribes by their grandfather, Israel. His life among the patriarchs would be marked by excellence, as well as intense jealousy towards his uncle, Judah. 

To me, it would be poetic if God chose a gentile like Joseph Smith to restore a church for the ultimate gathering of Israel as a modern Ephraim, by blessing (not breeding) him into the fold of the chosen people he had long envied and tried to imitate. --Even through seer stones.

Let's talk about 3 different types of seer stones. Because this is not just about interesting genealogy (or lack thereof). I want to get to claims of power, authority, seership, and presidency today, and with bloodline out of the picture that leaves us looking elsewhere. 

David A. Baird/
Historical Arts and Castings

The first type of seer stone is the spectacle-like device attached to the gold plates. This was meant to help Joseph Smith visualize and interpret the words engraved upon them by ancient hands. Because these spectacles are attached to a breastplate like temple priests of old, they are later referred to as an urim and thummim.  Traditionally, the urim and thummim would help priests perform cleromancy, i.e. determining God's will in a black and white, binary way. I imagine it would provide feedback as to whether man's interpretation was correct or not. At some point Joseph Smith decides he doesn't want to work only in this rigid way; he produces his own seer stone. The one that looks like a chocolate egg.

By Welden C. Andersen and Richard E. Turley Jr.

The chocolate-colored seer stone was something Joseph Smith had from when he was a young boy and fancied himself as having the powers of ancient Hebrew seers. There's a name for this kind of behavior, it's called Anglo Israelism. In other words, those who are from Northern European descent will believe --against all evidence to the contrary-- that they are literal heirs to the same blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This includes claims to priesthood power, land possession, and succession. 

The amazing thing is that the chocolate seer stone seemed to work. Joseph Smith produced The Book of Mormon with it. Later, when he comes across Egyptian papyrus, Joseph Smith uses another stone (a white one) to produce The Book of Abraham. We are starting to understand now that the chocolate-colored and white stones were likely not used for historical translations, but rather inspiration to produce scripture that deepens our knowledge of God.  

I have a testimony of The Book of Abraham. By extension, I believe those seer stones worked, not because Joseph Smith has the blood of Ephraim pumping through him, but because God blessed him to use those stones for enlightenment as He did with the Brother of Jared. This ability to act as seer further established Joseph Smith's authority as head of the restored Church. 

And then he was murdered without a succession plan.

It seems unthinkable that after all that effort to restore the Church of Jesus Christ, a framework for how it should continue was not solidified. And yet there it was, a succession crisis lasting 6 months! Thankfully the doctrine of having an established presidency with keys was already in place, but who should combine those keys and take on the mantel of president, prophet, and seer was up for serious debate and produced several factions in that time. 

Ultimately Brigham Young took the reins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but not since his predecessor do we see presidents of the Church using seer stones to establish doctrine and scripture. And yet we know the Church held on to the seer stone(s) because it was able to produce this item recently for exhibition. 

This is because, I believe, those stones serve as a type of "budded rod." Please allow me to explain.

The "budded rod" is described in the Old Testament as proof that Aaron and his sons should lead the Israelites. The parallel to the latter-day succession crisis is astounding. In both cases each of "The Twelve" believe they are next in line for power and authority. In Numbers 16 we learn that God commands the 12 to lay out their staffs (AKA rods) and return in the morning. The next day Aaron's staff has bloomed and has produced literal fruit (almonds). That secures his place as leader, and the rod's place in the Ark of the Covenant, next to the gold pot of manna, and the 10 Commandments. What was Brigham Young's "budded rod"? I surmise that it was the seer stone, which had produced the fruit of The Book of Mormon and was handed over to him by Oliver Cowdery. 

Brigham Young and his successors would likely deny it. He wanted it known that his authority lie in in his proximity to Joseph Smith AND being a literal descendant of Israel, like so many past presidents of the Church purported to be since. But a few things point against lineage being the actual, literal reason. First, we have modern hindsight to inform us that LDS presidents were mostly Northern European by DNA. Second, Brigham Young held on to the stone despite never using it --to our knowledge-- to produce scripture. Third, this could be coincidental, the box the stone was kept in was adorned with a rose blooming from its bud.

I need to take you a bit deeper into this symbolism if we're going to discuss applications for today. If we think the seer stone is a type of budded rod, then I imagine gold pot of manna is represented in our time by the new and everlasting covenants revealed to us, and the tablets are the scriptures by which we'll be judged. Just like in the days of old, the Ark of the Covenant is the outward representation of a people united and led by God. It also cements the authority of our doctrine. 

The imagery of the gold plates providing mana to our souls today is very beautiful. Let us not forget the plates were not the only things given to Joseph Smith by the angel, Moroni. He also presented the Sword of Laban and the Liahona. I think we tend to take that in as a neat factoid, and evidence that the events recorded in the Book of Mormon really did happen. While they certainly served that purpose, I have come to believe they were emblems of the Church Head and Body. Of Judgement and Mercy. Even of Joseph and Emma. If we combine these elements, it creates a figurative Mercy Seat atop of the Ark. I also interpret them as a warning: Lose your way and you will lose your life. 

Woman as the compass or Liahona is not an original thought I have. The scriptures and temple are teeming with this connection. And while I am more drawn to symbolism than early Church history, I do know that when Joseph Smith introduced polygamy Emma Smith became withdrawn, Joseph was murdered, and Emma --who had been charged to discern truth from error-- ceased to journey with Brigham Young. Since that time it seems the modern Ark of the Covenant went West, separating itself from the Mercy Seat, leaving a space filled with enmity between the men leading this Church and the outspoken women who ask them to redirect. 

Enmity might seem like a strong word, but I don't know how else to describe the response Brigham Young and his successors had after Emma stayed put. The words of the temple were changed so that women no longer received blessing unto God, but their husbands instead. The Relief Society became an auxiliary organization, instead of part of the "kingdom of priests." Further light about Heavenly Mother was stunted or blocked. And much more in the era of Correlation. This is life without a Mercy Seat, if you ask me. 

I wish to emphasize two things here. First, if you've read this far, thank you. Second, the new figurative Ark established Brigham Young as the one who should succeed Joseph Smith, and that authority lives on through our current structure utilizing the laying on of hands. I still can (and do) sustain current Church leaders in their roles because they are legitimately assigned to them. The only insight I have carved out for myself is that this legitimacy isn't rooted in Ephraimite blood, but rather a stone. This view further underscores my interpretation of Church leaders as the "wild branches" in Jacob 5 who are keeping this Gospel alive despite simultaneously bringing it to its knees (e.g. here, here). 

As Church authority lives on hand to head, remember too that Emma has a "lineage" of placing her hands on heads that are keeping up the work of discernment. And it is work. It would be much easier to simply take everything said over the pulpit as God's truth spoken by his Ephraimite messenger, and not challenge the messengers to produce tokens to validate. As Revelation puts it, straddling verses 11:19 & 12:1-2:

19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ^aark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great ^bhail.

1 ^aAnd there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a ^bwoman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with ^achild cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Pained in delivering this ark, this Church and its proclamations in the latter-days. I don't know about you, but I feel that.  

See One, Do One, Teach One

Seems legit.

In the medical education system you start out as a medical student with no real power to execute orders, to a resident physician with the ability to make decisions, order tests, and prescribe medications ... so long as your full-fledged attending physician signs off on them. Finally, after board certification and completion of residency you're the real deal. You fly solo, all power and liability is on you.

In medicine we also have a "See one, do one, teach one" motto. When you're a medical student your job is to mostly observe what the doctors do. You might interview patients and write notes, but those things don't really count in the medical record. When you're a resident you have a bit of a safety net under you and this is when you start doing real things under supervision. By the time you're an attending physician the idea, in an academic setting, is to mostly teach the residents and medical students.

So why am I giving you the inside scoop on how the medical field works? It's because I suspect President Nelson, a physician surgeon, applied these academic principles to Church policy creation and that's how we got The Policy (re: gays and their children) and its reversal. Here's why:

In 2015 President Thomas S. Monson had severe dementia. The Church was being run (as is its policy in such cases) by the combination of presidency keys. We see Boyd K. Packer die in July 2015 and The Policy go into effect November 2015. What happened in the interim? Russel M. Nelson became Quorum (of the Apostles) President (QP). For context, everyone at this time knows Nelson is next in line to become prophet and Dallin H Oaks is positioned to become the next QP or higher (as would become the case).

If we view this in terms of:

apostle = med student

QP = resident

Prophet = attending physician

It would be no surprise then if Russell M. Nelson as QP jumped at the opportunity to use executive power for something that he could say was the will of the Lord, but policy only (i.e. not offical doctrine). This would be practice for the big role for which he was slated. And we know he moves quickly, wasting no time. The Policy would be his "do one."

When the Chief strikes down your order.

But what one man wants and what the Lord wants are often not the same thing.

What was supposed to happen is President Eyring and President Uchtdorf with new QP Nelson, along with the sustaining and authoritative power of the remaining apostles, were to turn their keys in confirmation of what was taught to them by the Spirit.

What I think happened is a couple of things. I think Eyring and Uchtdorf, having worked for some time now without a functional President of the Church, slipped into the mode of "I sustain our [future] prophet." They wanted him to get practice as QP and succeed. Also, let's be honest, they knew they were a geriatric heartbeat away from answering to President Nelson for the remainder of their ministry. I'm guessing that factored in.

I suspect something went wrong right away. For starters, why focus on "the gay issue"? Especially right out of the gates? It seems like Nelson saw an obvious problem between homosexuality and Mormon Latter-day doctrine and wanted to fix it. I don't doubt he sought the will of the Lord, but it appears he landed on the side of legalism. And just who persuaded him to choose justice? Who likely pleaded for mercy instead (but ultimately relented)? I'll let you decide.*

*Worth a thousand words

In the end there needed to be apostolic consensus, but my guess is at least one presidency member drew near to The Policy with his lips for the sake of unity, but his heart (and key) were turned away from it. In contrast, I can see Nelson receiving guidance from someone who was close enough and practically there in terms of having presidential keys such that his input was valued more than it was worth. We see this happen from time to time in medicine, too. Senior resident and 4th year medical student start a surgical case without the attending surgeon and the patient bleeds out.

The patient in this case is everyone affected by The Policy. We can never say for sure how many LGBTQ members died by suicide as a result, but my gut and reasoning tells me the blood of this generation cries out.

The Silver Lining to a Large Black Cloud

I think three big things have/will come out of this: 1) We have learned how to discern right from wrong, 2) We now know which members will accept/reject false doctrine, and 3) More women will be brought into policy-making decisions at higher levels in more official ways.

1) I've said it before and I'll say it again, we must look for the tokens and signs Father promised to send us. When the leaders of the Church teach us a principle we should pray on it, consider it, and feel within us a confirmation that it's true. Then, when we act upon it, we should see good fruit. There was never any good fruit from The Policy. Only bad, heartbreaking, rotten products. Moreover, when it comes to church-wide policy, ALL presidential keys need to turn in agreement. This is tricky because The Policy was touted as coming from a unanimous voice, but I recall discussions at its onset about how this just didn't seem like something a certain key-holding apostle would support, at least not in his heart.

So let's say we were early saints and Peter, James, and Thaddeus approached us with new policy... Stop right there. That's not right. Perhaps the next time it came from the original First Presidency (Peter, James, and John), but they had no tokens and (good) signs to give... Thanks, but no thanks.

We need both: The actual presidency and the correct tokens and signs.


2) I remember after The Policy each and every woman I knew had a hard time with it. Even the most "totally believing Mormon" (TBM) types felt sick in the stomach thinking about babies being turned away. But within the same day of its announcement, these women and their male counterparts posted and preached about how, "if you look at it this way," The Policy is actually about love!

These members were wrong. They are dangerous. They need to learn from this and change.

3) I've looked back at my journal of impressions and the letter I gave my bishopric pleading for an end of at least one aspect of The Policy. My feeling is that this episode has made it clear that women need to be involved in policies that affect the family of God. And since that touches everything, I do expect an announcement this weekend during General Conference.


Closing Thoughts

Going back to that image I've painted of the confident resident and eager med student, I know and I hope you know they had no intent to harm. We also know the outcome was catastrophic. As "ancillary staff" did you take orders and facilitate a wrongful practice or did you run things up the chain to a higher authority?

Next time --because humanity assures us there will be a next time-- let's not accept a broken protocol nor leave the operating room; let's do all that we can. Together. Because now, as President of the Church, Russel M. Nelson is teaching us that we can learn from our mistakes and become better. Much better.

Female Seership

Source

In my earlier posts I asked and attempted to answer questions about the participatory roles of faithful women today. The duties and expectations for men are so clearly outlined within the priesthood offices; I think it would go a long way to have such expectations for women. After much praying, pondering, and reading the scriptures I have made two very startling (in a good way) discoveries, which I will further explore below: 1) The power of women is, among other things, divine seership. 2) Mother Earth assists in giving mankind its sight to see.

Female Seership in the Scriptures

Examples of women who could see and interpret emblems:

1. Eve could see the fruit was good
2. Rebekah saw who should receive the father's blessing
3. Mary saw that she would have a son of God, though the means she did not know
4. Elizabeth saw his name was John (I'm convinced Zacharias was mute so that he could write out his son's name and make this a visual experience representing his wife's seeing powers)

The astounding thing for me was finding the pairings of insightful women with men who were literally blind, which underscores her distinct power:

• Blind Isaac and Seeing Rebekah
• Blind Simeon* and Seeing Ana

I don't have time for it right now, but I'd really like to dissect the differences (if any) between Simeon and Ana because this could represent the parallel work of men and women intended for the Church today. They were on the same side in their example of receiving the Christ and it could be telling to see where they echoed each other, and where they uniquely complimented each other.

*Not written in scripture, but traditionally known as blind

Mother Earth, a Divine Urim and Thummin

The Restoration story features the use of the Urim and Thummin and seer stones, which are naturally derived from the earth. Likewise the Book of Mormon describes how the brother of Jared produced stones to overcome the darkness (i.e. blindness) in the barges headed for the promised land. Throughout the scriptures clay is used to restore sight to the blind. In all of these examples, Mother Earth expands the vision of men who would otherwise be limited without her. Latter-day doctrine even informs us that, one day, the entire earth in "its celestial condition will be a Urim and Thummim."

Convergence is a Sign of Seership

A Society of Seers

I have been blessed in my life to have good, righteous women in it. In the past year I was able to gather my elect sisters into an experiment of sorts. We would pray and ponder various thoughts and concepts and convene together in person and (mostly) online to discuss our insights. What we've found over and over again is that even when we study things separately, we often arrive at very specific and even unconventional conclusions in common. These conclusions are so specific as to make coincidence unlikely. I take such convergence to be a sign of seership in action, a look through the divine lens, if you will.

I wish to repeat here that The President of The Church is THE prophet and seer for The Church; what women have is on an individual scale, with the potential to change homes, communities, and nations.

He Presides... With Equality?

Today I asked on an open forum (to LDS and non-LDS alike) if  one person is assigned to preside can there be equality in a two person relationship? Equality being defined as the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc. I was looking for logic, a study of semantics, and anything but mental gymnastics.

I'll spare you the subsequent discussion, but from it I came to the following conclusion and observations:

IF this relationship is to work there appears to be 3 possibilities:

1. Equality achieved so long as partners take turns with authority
2. "Preside" needs to be redefined
3.  "Equality" needs to be tossed out and replaced with something else, something like "functional," or "efficient"

(Interestingly, only from the straight white male commentators came the suggestion that "equality" itself needs to be redefined, which I refuse to list here.)

I'd like to dive into the second option here. 

Already we have seen an evolution of terms defining men's authority from God. First we were told Adam would "rule" over Eve (Genesis 3:16). Later, we've been reassured (by President Kimball) this word means to "preside." Preside itself is defined as: To be in charge of something. The intransitive verb means "exercising guidance, direction, or control." In one of my many lessons on The Proclamation I was told it is a man's duty to do the "3Ps," Preside, Provide, and Protect. (Women have the letter N, for nurture.) I think it's worth examining each of these Ps individually as their differences may further elucidate what our expectations are within a male-female union. 

Preside: Many Latter-day saints take this to mean the husband is the head of the house. He is the ultimate authority, and so on. My brother-in-law, much to my pleasant surprise, noted that this thinking comes from the letters of Paul, which uses imagery that is meant to be "descriptive NOT prescriptive." In other words, when Paul describes the man as being in charge, he is using standards for a relationship with which his audience would be familiar at that time in order to paint a picture. He was not, however, endorsing this setup as a fixed principle. If it were not so, if Paul's words are to be taken as prescriptive, then in the very next chapter (Ephesians 6) would any of us argue servants/slaves today should still serve their masters "with fear and trembling"? I doubt it. 

Whether or not you agree with this interpretation of Paul, it stands to reason that one cannot call two people equal when one is at the top and the other is beneath. Instead, as I have earlier suggested, I believe we call upon words like "submit" and "sustain" when referencing women because they are coming from a higher realm (pre-mortally) and must condescend (enter a less dignified level, waive privileges of rank) to function in the lower offices of man's earthly priesthood. With this arrangement, presiding takes on the meaning of maintenance. Even in the janitorial sense. Man, as a presider, is charged with the upkeep of the offices of the Aaronic and Melchezidek priesthoods. He is to ensure the doors are open, authority is granted to work within them, and all members of his family have obtained the proper ordinances therein. Anything beyond this would seem (to me) out of the bounds of what God had intended. 

Provide: I was told this specifically means men are to make the money. That they are to toil and sweat in the fields as a result of The Fall. As it stands, my husband does work to provide for our family, but right now he's sitting on a cushioned desk chair in an air conditioned office in front of a fancy computer screen. He is hardly dying to get bread on the table. How come he gets to be exempt from the repercussions of The Fall while so many other people are sweating it out in the fields? And what about those scenarios where dad stays home with the kids and mom has a career? Are those couples frustrating gospel truths?

Again, I think we need to update our interpretations of these expectations. If you ask me (and this is my blog), providing means doing all that you can within your power to meet the needs of your individual family unit. This often involves anticipating the needs of others and preparing for hardships as we can no longer count on life being a breeze. Women are charged with this expectation, too, but I think it needs to be said specifically to men who naturally think in "I" terms over "we" (see Moses 5:10).

Protect: Many will tell you that because men have physiological advantages over women, protection is limited to muscle power over would-be threats. While there is something really hot about that imagery, I think there's more it than that. 

Lately I've been going back to this concept of the temple endowment being a further endowment for women, and that would imply they were given key tokens and signs prior to coming to earth. We know that when Lucifer fell, he took a third of the host of heaven with him, and I would imagine women were in that number. Is it possible or even likely that these fallen females shared with Satan the key words and tokens given to them premortally? The more I think about it, the more I believe it. To me, this would explain how certain phrases and images (tokens, signs) seemed to confirm to Eve that she could trust Satan in the garden. Because she was the first to eat the fruit and that setup was, essentially: the right message; wrong messenger, the solution was for Adam to offer protection as one not vulnerable to this specific type of attack. He must stand between the Adversary and Eve. 

How does that protection work? I believe not every name/sign/token was given prior to Lucifer's exit. I think some key pieces were administered at the veil of mortality to woman (preparing her for life on earth) and away from Satan's eyes and ears. Once a husband acknowledges that power within his wife, he will safeguard her by doing all he can to keep the Spirit in their environment. When temptation is placed before him he will consult with her to gather strength and push it away. He will pray continually for both their sake and sacrifice to obtain the blessings of peace in their home. 

Another possibility, when Satan observes man and woman, he knows the latter can see him perfectly, he is unable to make a surprise attack. Man is more likely to appear like a fledgling calf, just getting its eyesight. It then seems that while woman would be a prize catch, man is the easy hunt, which runs counter to what we would look towards for protection. Yet perhaps man is meant to be the decoy, and we are counting on him to sprint away unharmed. Those who condition themselves for the race against capture do so by making and keeping priesthood covenants; pride, abuse, greed, and lust make for spiritual carcasses on the field.

Closing thoughts:

With each of these terms and definitions I have arrived at conclusions that are guaranteed to be counter to what most LDS people are thinking on this subject. Some women love putting their man in charge as head of the house. They have a spirit of deference, which frankly I don't have (but would make my life a lot easier, let's face it). I've used this space to gather ideas and clarify thoughts that help me in my situation. I need to reconcile my insights from the temple with the cooperative paradigm of equal partners I'm shooting for in marriage. In other words, this is how Monique strengthens home and family. 

Tokens & Signs

Lately I've been going through life looking for and trying to appreciate tokens and signs from above. This came about as I happened upon something that triggered strong emotions and a joyful remembrance of what it felt like to be home with my Heavenly Parents. It was a simple piano medley. Others heard it and did not have the same reaction. I figured that what I was hearing had been agreed upon in the pre-mortal existence as a personal gift, and that it was meant to be revealed after a (successful) trial of faith. That was how it happened for me.

For the sake of this blog post, I will share my definitions for what a token is, and what constitutes a sign. As I see it, a token is something that serves as a reminder of God. An example of this is the token of the rainbow given to Noah after The Flood. A sign is an event or symbol that confirms the truth. An example of this is the sign of the dove, as described at Christ's baptism:

“The sign of the dove was instituted before the creation of the world, a witness for the Holy Ghost, and the devil cannot come in the sign of a dove. The Holy Ghost is a personage, and is in the form of a personage. It does not confine itself to the sign of the dove. The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove is an emblem or token of truth and innocence” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,276).

Life, it's kinda like this. 

Within this framework, I see ourselves as being very much like Super Mario. We go through this challenging, lone and dreary world with obstacles at each turn. If we remain diligent and keep pressing forward, we will come across tokens and even signs that will give us the spiritual equivalent of a 1UP. This will ultimately lead us to recognize and accept truth.

Along those lines, I can distinctly remember a token and sign given to me for my conversion. They didn't happen together at one time. The token came when I was a little girl playing with my brother in our living room (or as we say in Chicago, "frunchroom"). A commercial came on the TV, which I didn't pay much attention to as I was busy roughhousing, but when it was over the name of The Church came on the screen and I paused. It was new and familiar at the same time. It seemed important, but I didn't know what to do with that information then. Looking back, I see this as my token. Later, when my friends introduced me to the Gospel, I prayed really hard to know that it wasn't true. --If so, my life would be turned upside down! I was then led to Tobit 14:5, which says:

"And that again God will have mercy on them, and bring them again into the land, where they shall build a temple, but not like to the first, until the time of that age be fulfilled; and afterward they shall return from all places of their captivity, and build up Jerusalem gloriously, and the house of God shall be built in it for ever with a glorious building, as the prophets have spoken thereof."

That was my sign. I was baptized later that same year.

Whether or not we acknowledge them as such, it's my personal opinion that tokens, signs, or both are given before we advance to important callings or obtain greater power from the Lord's anointed ones. Today in church we studied the calling of the 12 apostles and I was excited to look at this using a different lens. Many remarked at how amazing it was for Peter, James, and John to drop their nets (drop everything, really) and follow Jesus immediately at His announcement. All seemed to wonder if they would be able to recognize a true messenger from God the Father and pondered what it would take for themselves to follow Him. You know what my answer is: It takes faith, fueled by a token and a sign.

If I'm on to something (and I think I am), then what was the token and the sign given to Peter? Let's reread the account in Luke 5:1-10:

"And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing nets. And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. And they beckoned unto  partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw  he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: And so wasalso James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men." (Emphasis added.)

If you ask me, the token for Peter was seeing the Lord preach from out of his boat; the sign was catching so many fish that the net broke. I believe these things were settled upon in the pre-mortal existence when Peter was foreordained to this work. He recognized them, and subsequently answered the call.

I'm really, really excited about discovering more tokens and signs both in the scriptures and in my own life. I intend to share these when possible, with the understanding that those that come with covenants not to disclose them will be kept sacred.

Of course, if you see me banishing unclean spirits or shooting flaming flowers out of my gloved hands on my way to celestial glory, you'll be able to tell something's up without me having to say anything.