What is the Difference Between a Blessing and a Prayer

[CV75]

Just now, Senator said:

What way? What are you talking about?

I administer it according to the 6 steps you listed.   You and Pres. Nelson seem to have a problem with how some interpret #5. That's all.

RE: #5 do you give a priesthood blessing to the child or offer a prayer asking for a blessing in their behalf? Do you interpret both as the same thing?

[Senator]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

RE: #5 do you give a priesthood blessing to the child or offer a prayer asking for a blessing in their behalf? Do you interpret both as the same thing?

Yes

 

[Calm]

On 8/21/2025 at 9:32 AM, Senator said:

what if he didn't use those exact words, but used other ways to express his thoughts?

If the intent is there without the words and the words aren’t lacking because intent is lacking, I personally assume the blessing is effective as a prayer (see Ken’s excellent post).

edited:  oops, repeated blessing rather than used prayer, hope people figured it out

Edited August 22, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Senator said:

Yes

 

According to President Nelson a blessing and a prayer in the context of his talk are not the same thing. He made his case; I'm not seeing where you made yours. You can just point me to the post if you think you've made it already.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

This includes if God's will was to inflict pain and then cease that course upon the recipient being blessed, or vice versa.

I find the rest of your post insightful, thought provoking, but this wording problematic.  There is a huge difference imo between God inflicting pain and allowing it to occur as natural consequences of mortality.  I am not sure what you intend to convey with this, so pointing this out as I am interested in clarification.

Edited August 21, 2025 by Calm

[Senator]

Just now, CV75 said:

According to President Nelson a blessing and a prayer in the context of his talk are not the same thing. He made his case; I'm not seeing where you made yours. You can just point me to the post if you think you've made it already.

No longer interested.  
It's fine. I do not need you or Pres. Nelson to agree with.  Let it be

[CV75]

Just now, Senator said:

No longer interested.  
It's fine. I do not need you or Pres. Nelson to agree with.  Let it be

My interest is not a matter of need for you to agree but of understanding your point of view.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He made his case; I'm not seeing where you made yours. You can just point me to the post if you think you've made it already.

Since there appears to be confusion over what his point actually was, his case feels incompletely made to me.  Something that occurs a lot in human communication, imo,.  I don’t see it as that problematic as it provides a chance for people to seek out God to receive clarification for themselves (though they may interpret the clarification differently being human…to me what is most important is the act of reaching out and deepening our relationship with the Lord).

[Senator]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My interest is not a matter of need for you to agree but of understanding your point of view.

I've come to doubt that

[JVW]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find the rest of your post insightful, thought provoking, but this wording problematic.  There is a huge difference imo between God inflicting pain and allowing it to occur as natural consequences of mortality.  I am not sure what you intend to convey with this, so pointing this out as I am interested in clarification.

Some blessings are "this person is sick and/or dying, be healed" and God says "OK". Other blessings could be "You are comfortable now in Nauvoo, but your enemies are going to kick you out and you have to trek 2000 miles. Oh and your baby is going to die on the journey. Turn to the Lord for strength and comfort." and God says, "OK".

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Sure

Again, we are throwing darts while blindfolded without knowing what was actually said.

We definitely are. But we’ve focused on Pres. Nelson being in the wrong. What does the discussion look like if we focus on the father being the one that needs correction?

(I know when I have a bias towards something due to personal experience that I often come into a discussion already dismissing the other side of the argument.  But most of my teachable moments with the spirit are when I don’t do that.  So I’m trying to not do that now.)

[CV75]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

I don't have an answer for you. I've been asking members about what the difference is between "praying for someone to be healed" vs "giving someone a healing blessing" for around 15 years now and am not really any closer to understanding the difference. However, I have learned a lot about the priesthood, generally, in that same timeframe and maybe a few insights I have will help tackle the question you pose in this thread.

The church defines priesthood as the "power and authority of God". Authority is easy to understand. Someone gets pulled over for speeding, if a cop issues a ticket that person is in trouble, if it's a neighbor that ticket is getting tossed in the bin. When anyone says a prayer, they do not need any authority. Prayer is a relationship building tool. I don't need any authority to make a new friend, or write a note to my crush in high school, or to ask for help studying, etc. So why does priesthood need authority and not just power?

I believe that the power of God is, by definition, "to be the answer to the question 'What would Jesus do?'".

If one is acting with God's power, they are acting as his agent/proxy/etc. They are speaking what He would speak, acting as He would act. They are His hands, His feet, His mouth. A cop representing the government has authority as long as they are employed and in good standing. But they only have power as long as they act the way the government would act. If they act contrary to who they represent they will be stripped of their power and authority.

So, if someone says a prayer, they can say, and ask for, anything they want without restriction and God will do whatever He feels like in response to the prayer. If someone has authority in the church to give a priesthood blessing, they can say whatever they want and God will do whatever He feels like in response to the blessing. If someone has authority, but also has God's power, they will speak as God would speak if He were in the room giving the blessing. In this case, truth is revealed, the Spirit is present, and God's will and man's will are in alignment. This includes if God's will was to inflict pain and then cease that course upon the recipient being blessed, or vice versa.

I personally believe that a father's blessing, baby's blessing, healing blessing, and comfort blessing are pretty much the same as praying over someone. And I think that blessings, in general, are more a result of tradition and culture than they are a vehicle for manifesting God's power. But I'm still learning and am probably wrong.

The unique item on your list is the priesthood ordinance of the naming and blessing of a child. The others are kinds of priesthood blessings. Both are conducted by priesthood authority (and ideally attendant priesthood power).

Prayers can be offered by anyone. Women have priesthood authority by callings (not office) and priesthood power by faith. For this reason, they do not administer healing blessings by priesthood authority but do offer effective prayers with priesthood power for healing.

A person who is blessed to be healed by priesthood authority and power may be equally healed by a woman praying with priesthood power or her spiritual gift to heal, so no difference there.

However, healing facilitated by priesthood authority and power unifies and strengthens Zion through its connection through presiding priesthood councils to Christ. This is a common theme in the D&C revelations on priesthood and the kingdom on earth. Healing prayers do not accomplish this; they do not require keys for approval.

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since there appears to be confusion over what his point actually was, his case feels incompletely made to me.  Something that occurs a lot in human communication, imo,.  I don’t see it as that problematic as it provides a chance for people to seek out God to receive clarification for themselves (though they may interpret the clarification differently being human…to me what is most important is the act of reaching out and deepening our relationship with the Lord).

Because he stated his concern as a preface, I see his examples as making that case.

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Senator said:

I've come to doubt that

That should not be an obstacle on a message board.

[JVW]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We definitely are. But we’ve focused on Pres. Nelson being in the wrong. What does the discussion look like if we focus on the father being the one that needs correction?

(I know when I have a bias towards something due to personal experience that I often come into a discussion already dismissing the other side of the argument.  But most of my teachable moments with the spirit are when I don’t do that.  So I’m trying to not do that now.)

If I'm in a sacrament meeting and a dad goes up to give a baby blessing I have three pet peeves. One is if they say a prayer, "Dear baby, here is your name, we pray that you will have a happy life, amen." Two is if they "bless" the baby to get married in the temple one day. Three is if the circle has more than like 8 people including the Bishop. If you're a dad, and a disciple of Jesus Christ, act like it. Choose select men to participate with you who you like and believe are worthy, not just random people b/c you chatted with them before Sacrament meeting started. Show a little bit of strength. Think about what the best kind of blessings are that your baby could have and bless them with it! If you think being poor is a blessing, bless them to be interested in career paths that are fulfilling, but not lucrative. If you think having a lot of friends is a blessing, bless them to have a popular demeanor. It's not quite the same as patriarchal blessings, but seeing how Lehi or Isaac did it is inspiring.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Because he stated his concern as a preface, I see his examples as making that case.

If so, why is there now confusion over what that concern exactly is? (Again for me this uncertainty over what is necessary and what isn’t, what are ‘best practices’ that occurs at times is almost a plus for our faith, I think having a less systematic theology, less scripted moments can leave more openings for questions to arise that cause us to turn to God).

Edited August 21, 2025 by Calm

[Senator]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We definitely are. But we’ve focused on Pres. Nelson being in the wrong. What does the discussion look like if we focus on the father being the one that needs correction?

(I know when I have a bias towards something due to personal experience that I often come into a discussion already dismissing the other side of the argument.  But most of my teachable moments with the spirit are when I don’t do that.  So I’m trying to not do that now.)

Sounds like a worthy practice!

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

If so, why is there now confusion over what that concern exactly is? (Again for me this uncertainty over what is necessary and what isn’t, what are ‘best practices’ that occurs at times is almost a plus for our faith, I think having a less systematic theology, less scripted moments can leave more openings for questions to arise that cause us to turn to God).

I think there are many causes of this confusion. Those who are confused will have to describe the disconnect between "Now, may I voice a concern? It is this: Too many of our brothers and sisters do not fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority" and his examples by showing that the examples indeed demonstrate a full understanding.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think there are many causes of this confusion. Those who are confused will have to describe the disconnect between "Now, may I voice a concern? It is this: Too many of our brothers and sisters do not fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority" and his examples by showing that the examples indeed demonstrate a full understanding.

That ignores the possible issue that Pres Nelson did not demonstrate what a full understanding means.  It is possible that not only did people in the examples didnot demonstrate a full understanding, but neither did Pres Nelson’s talk clearly explain what is a full understanding.

Edited August 22, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

That ignores the possible issue that Pres Nelson did not demonstrate what a full understanding means.  It is possible that not only did the examples not demonstrate a full understanding, but neither did Pres Nelson’s talk clearly explain what is a full understanding.

It doesn’t ignore it; it just lumps it with all the other possible issues creating confusion over his point and concern. So yes, some of it might be the issues of perceiving a lack of exactness and definition on his part; that is one possibility of many. I would accept anything anyone suggests as a possible issue as a possibility.

I think President Nelson describes a full understanding of the concept of priesthood power and authority, considering the time he has for the talk, in paragraphs 3 – 5, 10 – 12, 22 and 24 of the talk.

But let’s not ignore the exercise to identify how the examples he gave might demonstrate that the brothers and sisters do fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority as he describes it in the paragraphs I listed above, which exercise allows consideration of all possible issues, not just a perceived lack of exactness and definition.

[Kenngo1969]

For what it's worth, I think anybody who has ever laid his hands on another person's head has, to one extent or another, faced the dilemma whether to "play it safe" and give some bland, milquetoast blessing or whether to make bold pronouncements in the name of the Lord.  I have probably done both of those things (hopefully by inspiration in each [and every?] case, but I suppose we'll find out sooner or later: "Ken, I wanted you to pronounce a much bolder blessing here in my name.  Why didn't you?"   ) 

There are only three things I remember from the last blessing I got: Curiously, they're from words pronounced by a former law school classmate of mine.  I'm not sure how much he remembers me from law school.  Candidly, I didn't remember him before I looked him up, but we have had an interesting rapport since I moved into the Stake.  (Heh!)  I don't remember much of anything from law school [that might be a blessing! ] but I have this ostentatious diploma frame I bought using borrowed money that has my degree in it, and I do have a [very marginal! ] transcript from law school (neither of which, for what it's worth, is forged, Frank-Abagnale-style, thankyouverymuch!  If I were gonna forge my transcript, I would have given myself way better grades!  Law firm hiring partner: "Straight A's in law school, hmmm?  Impressive!  Very impressive." )  We started at the same time, but I ended up graduating after he did: I wonder if he knows that I actually have a law degree, but that's another subject for another day!  

At any rate, as for that blessing, it was very short.  Some might say it was quite bland milquetoast, but I didn't rise from the chair to upbraid him: "Come on, man!  What was that?!!  Be bold!!"    It suited me just fine, even though nothing particularly earth shattering or noteworthy was said in it.  I just said to myself, a la Bill Cosby and his old "Noah" routine, "You and me, Lord."

Edited August 22, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

On 8/20/2025 at 6:10 PM, Calm said:

...  I don’t know if there is something that materially moves from the one giving the blessing to the one receiving it, but it certainly has felt like it for myself on occasion.  I do believe there is something shared between the one giving the blessing and the one receiving if both are open to the spirit in some fashion (the person receiving need not be conscious since it’s a spiritual sharing and my guess is our spirits never sleep or get knocked unconscious, etc). ... 

I think this bears repeating ... so I repeated it!    That is all!  

[ZealouslyStriving]

This discussion devolving into challenging Pres. Nelson and arguing that a blessing is no different than a prayer has proved his point that many don't understand the power of the Priesthood.

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

This discussion devolving into challenging Pres. Nelson and arguing that a blessing is no different than a prayer has proved his point that many don't understand the power of the Priesthood.

So if I am stranded on a country road after an accident, and my child is in the car and as a woman, I pray to God to save my child, there’s less power in that person than if the man were there and gave the child a priesthood blessing?  
 

 

[MrShorty]

@ZealouslyStriving I think you are right. This shows that many of us don't understand priesthood. As the Eunuch said to Philip, how can we understand if someone doesn't teach us? At this point, it seems that most of the teaching on the topic is vague, based on prooftexts and traditions. I'm not going to feel bad that I don't understand priesthood because, if I might be so bold and irreverent, God's system of teaching lacks clarity and certainty. Many LDS claim that God's system is designed to be uncertain. Sometimes so that God can hide important truths from those He doesn't want to learn truth. Sometimes it is about protecting the ignorant from knowledge. And other reasons pop up.

In mortal topics (like math), when broad groups of students have trouble understanding the topic, educators delve into the curriculum and try to figure out how to better teach the topic so that students will be better able to understand the concepts being taught. If many LDS are not understanding priesthood, when should the church and its leaders begin to examine the curriculum and root out the flaws and errors in the curriculum?

Now that I have entered the discussion, this topic is one I have struggled with, too. I have wondered how the question of women versus men holding the priesthood might add to the discussion. It comes up fairly frequently, but a question like what is the difference between an endowed woman praying for someone who is sick and a pair of ordained elders performing the rituals related to the priesthood ordinance of blessing the sick? When Pres. Nelson gave his "Spiritual Treasures" talk, I found myself contemplating what formal ordination brings to ways that we strive to serve and bless each other, and I haven't found a good answer to the question.

If I had to speculate as to the answer to the OP, I think there is a sometimes subtle distinction between prayers where one is pleading with God for some blessing, but doesn't feel confident enough in God's will to command (for lack of a better word) God to grant the blessing. When giving a blessing, the voice (male or female) somehow has gained enough confidence in their understanding of God's will to "command" the blessing. That confidence in knowing God's will can, IMO, only come from the Spirit in the moment. At that point, the problem I see with Pres. Nelson's disappointment is -- what was the father supposed to do? Postpone the blessing a week while he spent more time trying to understand God's will for his child? Defer to someone else to act as voice in the blessing while he stepped aside? I guess a lot depends on whether we thing we can command God to grant His Spirit to us in the moment or not. IMO, God is the gatekeeper of His Spirit and, when He decides to withhold, we can often only do our best to pray for our desires and then hope God grants them in His mercy. At that point, I wonder if what the utility is in publicly expressing disappointment in someone else's best efforts to exercise the priesthood that they hold.