Heavenly Mother & Mother Mary

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I like this idea, so he has given his permission to do the sealing after he has passed?  

All sealings will eventually be done.   (Though he is cool with the idea, to actually answer your question).

Likewise, you and your husband eventually have the opportunity to accept/honor those vows, whether it happens before mortal death or after.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

sorry I have no idea why that printed twice! 

It's a system glitch.  Don't worry about it :).   The glitch really likes @anatess2, sometimes it posts her stuff 4 times!

[Blossom76]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

That's irrelevant.  All sealings will eventually be done.   (Though he is cool with the idea, to actually answer your question).

Likewise, you and your husband eventually have the opportunity to accept/honor those vows, whether it happens before mortal death or after.

So just do it without his permission? Start eternity off with an argument LOL - he'd be so angry at me, but seriously though I think he would see it as an insult to his faith - he has eternity sorted out, he made his choice, I don't think it is my place to do something like that to him.

[Jane_Doe]

 

8 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I think he would see it as an insult to his faith - he has eternity sorted out, he made his choice, I don't think it is my place to do something like that to him.

From the LDS view point:      You are not doing anything to him.  You can't.  Christ provides him with the opportunity to honor/rejoice with you as his wife forever.  Your husband (or anyone else) can totally decline it or any other of Christ's gifts.  They are gifts, not prison sentences.

From an outside non-LDS viewpoint: if LDS theology is not true in this regard, then all of our work for the dead doesn't actually do anything.  It's well intentioned and well meaning, but ultimately didn't do anything.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Blossom76]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

From the LDS view point:      You are not doing anything to him.  You can't.  Christ provides him with the opportunity to honor/rejoice with you as his wife forever.  Your husband (or anyone else) can totally decline it or any other of Christ's gifts.  They are gifts, not prison sentences.

From an outside non-LDS viewpoint: if LDS theology is not true in this regard, then all of our work for the dead doesn't actually do anything.  It's well intentioned and well meaning, but ultimately didn't do anything.

Thank you, that really makes sense to me

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

So just do it without his permission? Start eternity off with an argument LOL - he'd be so angry at me, but seriously though I think he would see it as an insult to his faith - he has eternity sorted out, he made his choice, I don't think it is my place to do something like that to him.

Actually, everyone's temple work will be done eventually.  That will be the great work of the millennium.  If you feel like he would not want you to do it, you don't have to, but someone will eventually - even if it's a thousand years from now.  Better, IMO, for you to do it (should things work out that way), or your children (should things work out that way), so that the two of you don't have to wait for those blessings (should things work out that way).

What everyone is tiptoe-ing around is the promise that no blessings will be denied those who are worthy of them.  This implies (though I can't recall if it's ever explicitly worded this way), that someone who did not have the chance to be sealed to a spouse in mortality will have the chance to be sealed to a spouse in eternity (that work would also presumably be done by proxy during the millennium).  Who that spouse would be, how that is figured out, I have no idea and have never heard a single teaching about it.  There are those who will say I've gone too far, that the promise ends with the first sentence of this paragraph and we can't actually be sure that those not sealed in mortality will have an eternal spouse, because that's never been explicitly stated.  And they're right, we can't be sure, but it sure seems strongly implied by that promise of not being denied any blessing for which we are worthy.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

So just do it without his permission? Start eternity off with an argument LOL - he'd be so angry at me, but seriously though I think he would see it as an insult to his faith - he has eternity sorted out, he made his choice, I don't think it is my place to do something like that to him.

My mother said the exact same thing when I asked to baptize my father when he passed.  So I told her, "you mean to say, you believe that the LDS baptism actually has power over dad?"  She said, "of course not!".  So I told her, "Okay then."

But yeah, the ordinances are done by proxy for those who have passed.  If your husband passes and somebody else is baptized in his stead, the baptism has zero effect on him unless he desires to be baptized in the spirit world.  The thing is, we do not know the desires of those who passed, so we do the baptism by proxy in the hopes that they would eventually desire it. 

It would be a great tragedy for somebody to have passed, desire to be baptized, and he has to wait almost an eternity for somebody living to do the work.  I mean, it would be like you desiring to be baptized and couldn't because of the circumstances with your husband - but worse because at least with your husband you can continue to plead with him whereas in the spirit world, all you can do is wait.

Anyway, that's just my own thoughts on the matter.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

This is from the LDS.org talking about this very subject, 'The Importance of Celestial Marriage' its a long talk and I'm pouring over it but it says 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/the-importance-of-celestial-marriage?lang=eng 

We may be angels, if we are righteous enough. Even unmarried, we may reach the celestial kingdom, but we will be ministering angels only.

So I guess I'll be a servant in the Celestial Kingdom at best - at least I'll be there, that's what matters right?

That applies to those that choose not to get Sealed.  Not those that can not.

You might think you are righteous but if there is ever a time God opens the door and you say no... then you are done (barring repentance).  But until God opens the door and invites you to walk through, you can neither say Yes or No..  So God will in is wisdom judge you on what he knows you would have chosen had he given you the chance.

So you ask what would happen to you... well only you can know your heart.  Would you choose to be Sealed?  If the answer is well and truly yes then then that is the answer that will apply in the the world to come, even if you never got the chance (That what the scripture with Joseph Smith's brother was all about)

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

Yes, a man can divorce the woman he was sealed to in order to go after a fresh young new wife but the sealing between the man and his first wife is now null and void. Yes, he has committed the act of putting the first wife aside and the promise of an eternal sealing is lost- it's not that the act is prohibited, he just loses the promise of the sealing.

Here, this isn't a church site but it puts it simply:

https://www.thoughtco.com/can-mormons-divorce-if-temple-marriage-2159554

Now, my friend is in a quagmire because there were 2 sealings and the first sealing wasn't cancelled (that's what she says).  

Do you realize the article you linked to specifically disagrees with you?

Quote

If a temple marriage or temple sealing has occurred, the couple still needs a legal divorce. However, they may also have their temple marriage/sealing canceled.

Generally, a couple must legally divorce before seeking a cancellation of their temple marriage/sealing.

CANCELLATIONS MUST PRECEDE A NEW MARRIAGE/SEALING FOR WOMEN

When a couple legally divorce, the temple marriage/sealing is effectively nullified, because the couple are no longer together and do not wish to be.

Spiritual blessings can still flow from this covenant, even if the marriage has ended in legal divorce.

the process begins by going to your bishop and requesting the cancellation.

Effectively, I'd agree with -- as they explain.  But in a literal, official, by the book sense, no.

I don't know how you could have missed statements in EVERY SINGLE SECTION of the article you linked to countering nearly all your statements that you chose to "stand by."

3 hours ago, Vort said:

How about just post the Church Handbook section, General Conference talk, or other source for your claim? That would be the most helpful and efficient thing.

Because he can't.  Such references don't exist.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Guest

[bytebear]

If I can throw in my two cents. 

Think of it this way.  God has promised that everything will be eventually sorted out.  People who have never heard of Christ will still be saved through proxy baptism.  Those who were married will be sealed, and those who didn't want to be sealed will be unsealed, and perhaps sealed to another.  It will all eventually wrap up in a nice neat package where literally everyone will be accepting of their lot, and will be in a place that is best for them.  Hell is not punishment, but a lack of ultimate blessing, because we could not live up to the obligations of those blessings.  But even they will know their lot is fair.  

So, some people will most likely live in polygamous relationships, some people will be unsealed, and some people will be single acting as ministering angels, but all will be happy and it will all have worked out.

So, if that's the case, why do we even have a church?  Why do we bother proselytizing or doing temple work. Why do we search out our ancestors and do proxy baptisms for them?  Why are we encouraging you to be baptized, to attend church, to study scripture?

The answer is simple.  Joy.  Love.  Blessings.   We do it because it makes people's lives, and afterlives better.  There are countless blessings just waiting to be poured over you, but they cannot occur until you covenant with God (baptism, temple, sealings).   God wants us to be happy, but he cannot force us to be happy.  All he can do is teach you what will make you happy, and hope you make the right choices.  We try to work out situations as best we can, but we know our work is imperfect and incomplete, but it will be completed perfectly eventually.

So, I firmly believe that in the afterlife, you and your husband will be sealed in heaven, assuming he is a righteous man which, based on your posts, I believe he is.   But, I would hate for him to wait in the afterlife for someone to get around to doing a sealing.  I believe there are people in the spirit world hoping that someone somewhere will come across their birth record, or marriage certificate and submit the name to the temple, so they can be released from spirit prison into paradise.  But that can't happen unless we do the work.

I am reminded of this scripture.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/18.10

12 And he hath risen again from the dead, that he might bring all men unto him, on conditions of repentance.

13 And how great is his joy in the soul that repenteth!

14 Wherefore, you are called to cry repentance unto this people.

15 And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!

16 And now, if your joy will be great with one soul that you have brought unto me into the kingdom of my Father, how great will be your joy if you should bring many souls unto me!

17 Behold, you have my gospel before you, and my rock, and my salvation.

Edited November 29, 2017 by bytebear

[Alex]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Do you realize the article you linked to specifically disagrees with you?

Eh?

What on earth are you going on about? I already showed you once how you weren't reading my replies and all you did was laugh in reply. There's not much point engaging with your challenges if all you can do is laugh when I show you where you are wrong.

sigh, nonetheless.

a) My friend, a woman, has been sealed twice and the first one wasn't cancelled according to her.

b) I know that a talk was given in conference where it was stated that a man cannot put his wife aside in order to catch a new bride and expect the first sealing to remain.

Look, read this bit you've quoted:

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

When a couple legally divorce, the temple marriage/sealing is effectively nullified, because the couple are no longer together and do not wish to be.

Yep, that's what I said. I didn't use the word 'excommunicate' at all- vort brought that word up, not I.

 

 

Maybe you need to read a little deeper, instead ensnaring yourself in your own hubris ?

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, bytebear said:

If I can throw in my two cents. 

 

No, I don't think you can. That privilege has been permanently claimed by @my two cents One cent, sure, go ahead, three cents is even better, but not two cents.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Alex said:

Yep, that's what I said. I didn't use the word 'excommunicate' at all- vort brought that word up, not I.

When did I bring up "excommunicate"?  (talk about projecting).  Never was that part of any of my posts.

6 hours ago, Alex said:

b) I know that a talk was given in conference where it was stated that a man cannot put his wife aside in order to catch a new bride and expect the first sealing to remain.

That isn't what the argument was about.  But you don't care because you've never misread anything.  That's only for us weaker mortals.

6 hours ago, Alex said:

There's not much point engaging with your challenges if all you can do is laugh when I show you where you are wrong.

But you didn't show me where I was wrong (the post you're referring to when I laughed at you).  All you did was try to take an intellectual high road by saying that my challenge was beneath you and that you were so superior to me that I needed to do the exercise that I challenged you to do.

Well, if you were so superior, why did you use incorrect grammar to do so?  I'll bet if you look back on it, you don't even know what was incorrect either.

6 hours ago, Alex said:

Maybe you need to read a little deeper, instead ensnaring yourself in your own hubris ?

Funny that you accuse me of needing to look deeper instead of realizing that your own misguided assumptions make you guilty of that which you accuse others of.

Me? Hubris?  Maaayyyyybeeee.

You?  How about hubris AND hypocrisy?

Edited November 29, 2017 by Guest

[Alex]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

When did I bring up "excommunicate"?  (talk about projecting).  Never was that part of any of my posts.

That isn't what the argument was about.  But you don't care because you've never misread anything.  That's only for us weaker mortals.

But you didn't show me where I was wrong (the post you're referring to when I laughed at you).  All you did was try to take an intellectual high road by saying that my challenge was beneath you and that you were so superior to me that I needed to do the exercise that I challenged you to do.

Well, if you were so superior, why did you use incorrect grammar to do so?  I'll bet if you look back on it, you don't even know what was incorrect either.

Funny that you accuse me of needing to look deeper instead of realizing that your own misguided assumptions make you guilty of that which you accuse others of.

Me? Hubris?  Maaayyyyybeeee.

You?  How about hubris AND hypocrisy?

 

You say "that isn't what the argument is about" but truly, what is your argument about?

Hmm, It's as though you are obsessed with me... sorry but, I'm a hetrosexual man- I'm not gay.

 

 

[JohnsonJones]

16 hours ago, Alex said:

Now, my friend is in a quagmire because there were 2 sealings and the first sealing wasn't cancelled (that's what she says).  

I do not see how she could be correct if she is alive.  Point blank, this is not allowed in the LDS church as far as I know, and is not allowed to this day.  You have to have a cancellation of sealing to the first spouse in her case, in order to be sealed to the second. 

Now, something that I personally don't really think is right, is a change they started in the temples in regards to the dead.  After one is passed away, they seal women to any and all husbands they were ever married to.

Serial abuser and tried to kill his own wife...doesn't matter...they seal her to him.  Beat her down and she fled for her life till she could get a divorce...doesn't matter...they'll still seal her to him.  Children object to any sealing at all between the two...doesn't matter...they seal her to him.  I know, because this happened to my relative who was married to an abuser at the age of 13, and finally got free of him.  Of all the things wished for, was that if there were sealings, under no circumstance was she ever to be sealed to that man.  Guess what happened.

It's my own fallibility on this issue though.  It bothers me deeply.  I understand the idea that some present that she will be able to choose, or otherwise, but if the Kingdom is one of order, throwing chaos into it with what should be an unnecessary ordinance...

Don't get me wrong, I'm still strongly a believer and I know the gospel is true, but this is one of those things that actually bother me a little.

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, Alex said:

Eh?

What on earth are you going on about? I already showed you once how you weren't reading my replies and all you did was laugh in reply. There's not much point engaging with your challenges if all you can do is laugh when I show you where you are wrong.

sigh, nonetheless.

a) My friend, a woman, has been sealed twice and the first one wasn't cancelled according to her.

b) I know that a talk was given in conference where it was stated that a man cannot put his wife aside in order to catch a new bride and expect the first sealing to remain.

Look, read this bit you've quoted:

Yep, that's what I said. I didn't use the word 'excommunicate' at all- vort brought that word up, not I.

 

 

Maybe you need to read a little deeper, instead ensnaring yourself in your own hubris ?

Either there was a mistake made somewhere, or she has been misinformed.  The LDS church has been quite firm that a woman has to have the first sealing cancelled if she is to be sealed to another.  The only way this occurs differently these days is after they are dead. 

This dates back to the beginning of Temple sealings and such from what I understand, so it's not a new principle.

As you mentioned, it is according to her statements so there is room there to say, I think she may have misunderstood something or a mistake of some sort was made, either by her or someone else.  To say it is highly irregular if it occurred (as in, against LDS church policy) is stating it lightly.  I'm curious how this did occur, if it did, when it is actually against church Policies going far before even I was born.

Now if she is dead...as I explained above, the LDS church has changed how it handles it.

[Alex]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I do not see how she could be correct if she is alive.  Point blank, this is not allowed in the LDS church as far as I know, and is not allowed to this day.  You have to have a cancellation of sealing to the first spouse in her case, in order to be sealed to the second. 

Now, something that I personally don't really think is right, is a change they started in the temples in regards to the dead.  After one is passed away, they seal women to any and all husbands they were ever married to.

Serial abuser and tried to kill his own wife...doesn't matter...they seal her to him.  Beat her down and she fled for her life till she could get a divorce...doesn't matter...they'll still seal her to him.  Children object to any sealing at all between the two...doesn't matter...they seal her to him.  I know, because this happened to my relative who was married to an abuser at the age of 13, and finally got free of him.  Of all the things wished for, was that if there were sealings, under no circumstance was she ever to be sealed to that man.  Guess what happened.

It's my own fallibility on this issue though.  It bothers me deeply.  I understand the idea that some present that she will be able to choose, or otherwise, but if the Kingdom is one of order, throwing chaos into it with what should be an unnecessary ordinance...

Don't get me wrong, I'm still strongly a believer and I know the gospel is true, but this is one of those things that actually bother me a little.

Yeah, It's an odd one and while it comes up in topic with her now and then, I don't really pursue it with her in conversation in order to somehow 'fix it'. From my perspective, there are all sorts of people in the church who are in personal situations in which they, for whatever reason, don't always fit into the neatly defined lines. Be it the single orphan who is supposed to be singing the hymn 'families can be together' and he doesn't utter the line 'I have a family here on earth' or the good and dutiful LDS wife who is put aside by a husband who marries a younger woman etc. It all boils down to faith in a just god.

Hmm, I honestly didn't know about deceased women being sealed to any and all husbands they ever had- if that's not a case of the choice coming down to the woman then I don't know what is.

I'm moved by the story you relate of your relative.

Hmm, I drove through a red light camera at an intersection late last year and a few weeks ago I just challenged it in court, and WON! Yep, the state had a series of pix of me in my car breaking the law (caught red handed so to speak) but I went to court and presented my case, and the judge agreed and let me off the $500 fine. Amazing. I say this because I believe that we will all be given the opportunity to present our cases.  

 

[Maureen]

46 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

...Now, something that I personally don't really think is right, is a change they started in the temples in regards to the dead.  After one is passed away, they seal women to any and all husbands they were ever married to.

Serial abuser and tried to kill his own wife...doesn't matter...they seal her to him.  Beat her down and she fled for her life till she could get a divorce...doesn't matter...they'll still seal her to him.  Children object to any sealing at all between the two...doesn't matter...they seal her to him.  I know, because this happened to my relative who was married to an abuser at the age of 13, and finally got free of him.  Of all the things wished for, was that if there were sealings, under no circumstance was she ever to be sealed to that man.  Guess what happened.... 

This seems a bit odd. Isn't it set up that family members do proxy work for their ancestors, their dead? You are painting a picture where it looks like there is a group of people in the LDS church who willy nilly seal men and women to each other (because they were once married in life) with no concern about their living family relatives. I'm finding this hard to believe. I thought there were rules about family members doing proxy work for other family members.

M.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Maureen

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Maureen said:

This seems a bit odd. Isn't it set up that family members do proxy work for their ancestors, their dead? You are painting a picture where it looks like there is a group of people in the LDS church who willy nilly seals men and women to each other (because they were once married in life) with no concern about their living family relatives. I'm finding this hard to believe. I thought there were rules about family members to proxy work for other family members.

M.

Depends on how long ago the stuff occurred.  I believe the time limit is 110 years.  I'm quite old comparatively to some here, and hence my grandparents and their siblings were born in the 1800s (19th century) type old.  In other situations, I don't know what goes on.  I mentioned some while ago, that despite me being the only member in my family in the LDS church, apparently other people feel like they have free reign to do my family genealogy.  My family does have some very notable connections in some areas which may make some of them well known, and perhaps LDS want to do that temple work for them after they are dead...but as far as I know, it is NOT the actual LDS family members doing it in many cases (that member being Me, or my kids...at least they absolutely deny knowledge of certain things to me).

At one point, my grandmother had her temple work done 5 different times a few years ago, and it's only increased since then!!!! (it's weird how the family tree/search thing shows this.  It shows her and I bring it up and then I see how many times her ordinances are being done with different squares indicating that she is a different person, but those different persons all have the same information and are all considered my Grandmother in the exact same slot!!! with the same parents, birthdate, etc.).

[Maureen]

@JohnsonJones, doesn't Family Search also let you see who did the proxy work for your Grandmother. Isn't that information supposed to be provided?

Can you provide any source that backs up your claim that women are being sealed to multiple men against the wishes of their family? Or anything that is even close to what you are claiming.

M.

[Maureen]

I found this information about Policies regarding Proxy work for Deceased relatives. Please remove this link if it is not allowed.

https://familyhistoryworkshop.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/templepolicy-dec2011.pdf

M.

[Jane_Doe]

56 minutes ago, Maureen said:

This seems a bit odd. Isn't it set up that family members do proxy work for their ancestors, their dead? You are painting a picture where it looks like there is a group of people in the LDS church who willy nilly seal men and women to each other (because they were once married in life) with no concern about their living family relatives. I'm finding this hard to believe. I thought there were rules about family members doing proxy work for other family members.

M.

Let me help clarify things here--

* The act of performing a sealing in and of itself does nothing.  Rather, it only has an effect *if* the persons involve choose to accept God's gift.  So despite what any of us mortals do, so no person is going to be involved in eternal sealing they do not choose.

* Us mortals mess up paperwork and ordinances attached to them all the time.  That's why God is ultimately going to come down and get everything sorted out (rather, just inform us how silly we've been, He's always known how things really were).

* And yes, there are a lot of rules to help guide us mortals to do things in a somewhat-logical fashion, especially if a person is recently deceased.  Such is the link Maureen provided here:

7 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I found this information about Policies regarding Proxy work for Deceased relatives. Please remove this link if it is not allowed.

https://familyhistoryworkshop.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/templepolicy-dec2011.pdf

M.

* All individuals in the Celestial Kingdom will be perfected and Christ-like.  Mega-mega upgrades from the current fallen people are now.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

@JohnsonJones, doesn't Family Search also let you see who did the proxy work for your Grandmother. Isn't that information supposed to be provided?

Can you provide any source that backs up your claim that women are being sealed to multiple men against the wishes of their family? Or anything that is even close to what you are claiming.

M.

I have talked to those on Family search (they have a help line, we were trying to merge the names, so that only her's showed at the time, but don't you know it, others pop up anyways).

I don't know how to see who did the proxy work via family search.  I'm not exactly computer literate, so it may be that I just can't figure these things out.

I do not know a public source which you can be referred to in regards to your question.  I think the first Handbook of Instruction to refer to this was in 1989 or thereabouts when the policy change came about.  I think it is still referred to in the Handbook (1) and probably in temple instructions/handbooks, but I do not know of a publically available source that is put out officialy by the LDS church. 

Then I read the link which you posted...

34 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I found this information about Policies regarding Proxy work for Deceased relatives. Please remove this link if it is not allowed.

https://familyhistoryworkshop.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/templepolicy-dec2011.pdf

M.

In it, it states

Quote

Can a Woman Be Sealed to More Than One Husband?

A living woman may not be sealed to more than one man. A deceased woman may be

sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life.

However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased

before she may be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.

Can a Divorced Couple Be Sealed?

Deceased couples who were divorced may be sealed. This may provide the only way for

their children to be sealed. However, if they were sealed in life and the sealing was

canceled, First Presidency approval is required for them to be sealed again.

Which basically states what I said.  It's not something I actually agree with, however it is a small item in regards to the church practices.

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I have talked to those on Family search (they have a help line, we were trying to merge the names, so that only her's showed at the time, but don't you know it, others pop up anyways).

I don't know how to see who did the proxy work via family search.  I'm not exactly computer literate, so it may be that I just can't figure these things out.

You can see it on FamilySearch.  

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Which basically states what I said.  It's not something I actually agree with, however it is a small item in regards to the church practices.

Again, having a sealing ordinance done doesn't automatically mean it'll be honored in the eternities.   

Edited November 29, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Maureen]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Can a Woman Be Sealed to More Than One Husband?

A living woman may not be sealed to more than one man. A deceased woman may be

sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life.

However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased

before she may be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.

As you can see, it says "she may be sealed". The way you've described your experience sounds like non-related members are doing proxy work for these deceased women against the requests of living family members.

M.