What is the Difference Between a Blessing and a Prayer

[Kenngo1969]

On 8/21/2025 at 7:18 AM, Senator said:

It almost sounds as if he is calling for a scripted liturgy for priesthood blessings.

 I would rather it be spiritually organic.

I disagree.  I think he's right, as our friend @MustardSeed has pointed out, that putting one's hands on the head of another isn't required for one to pray for another [or for oneself] (and, certainly, prayers are supposed to be spiritually organic).  President Nelson isn't saying that Priesthood blessings aren't supposed to be spiritually organic.  Rather, he's saying that, while both prayers and Priesthood administrations are supposed to be organic, they are different in that Priesthood holders are authorized to pronounce specific blessings upon the recipient, and not simply to request blessings on the recipient's behalf.

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@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.

I think I understand it (enough, and as least as fully as President Nelson lays it out in his talk). I am open to questions. I don't mean to sound pompous; it is for the sake of discussion and am open to anyone pointing out what I do not understand.

I see you have a couple of questions already:

Regarding women, Posted 20 hours ago

Regarding "What was the father supposed to do?" In the moment, he could have only done his best with what he had. As lost an opportunity as it represents, his improper administration isn’t the end of the world. He can try to learn from whatever feedback he received or further knowledge he pursues on his own or by the ministry of his priesthood leaders as President Nelson called out. We all are responsible for doing that no matter our area of Gospel inexperience, ignorance, weakness, sin, etc. The Lord reaches out to all of us and teaches us the lessons we need in due time, in many, many ways.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@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.

It really is confusing, I think mostly because we humans are pretty linear thinkers, and we like things in boxes.  It's confusing to us when people can be healed by both a "prayer of faith" and also "a priesthood blessing".  It makes us wonder, why do we need both?  I've wondered that a lot and still don't have many answers.  I think the way the church has taught the topics in the past has also created some confusion.

I did come across a talk written by Robert Millet (he is a gospel giant that I look up to a lot and has written some of my favorite books so I tend to value his opinion on things) I found helpful, which said this about it.

Quote

 

"The gifts of the Spirit are available to every member of the Church who lives worthy of the companionship of the third member of the Godhead. That is to say, spiritual gifts are not gender specific. Interestingly, however, two of the gifts—the ministry of angels, and the gift of faith to heal—are connected with God’s priesthood. Because the Aaronic Priesthood was restored to the earth by John the Baptist in May 1829 (see D&C 13), the right to enjoy the ministry of angels is available to all, based upon the mind and will of God, for angels “minister according to the word of [Christ’s] command” (Moroni 7:30). And, as we have seen, while all members of the Church—and all of God’s children, for that matter—may and should pray with great faith for the blessing and recovery of the sick or afflicted, administration to the sick may be done only by those who have received the Melchizedek Priesthood by ordination.

If, then, the power of faith and the power of the priesthood are both God’s power, why should we concern ourselves with both? Why perform priesthood administrations, for example, when a prayer of faith might accomplish the same result? Thank goodness for those prayers of faith that call down the powers of heaven, for the noble men and women, boys and girls, who offer up their petitions in great earnestness, who have learned to attune their minds and hearts to the will of God and thereby ask “in the Spirit” (D&C 46:30). Miracles are wrought by such persons. As long as time lasts and the earth shall stand, we will need and rely upon such actions.

And yet there is an additional measure of blessing, a value added when the holy priesthood is exercised. The priesthood of Almighty God is intended to do more than repair that which is broken, far more than to heal the sick and even raise the dead. The priesthood is, in the language of the Prophet Joseph Smith, “the channel through which the Almighty commenced revealing His glory at the beginning of the creation of this earth, and through which He has continued to reveal Himself to the children of men to the present time, and through which He will make known His purposes to the end of time.” [18] In a revelation given to Joseph Smith in September 1832, the Lord explained that the “greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; for without this [the power of godliness] no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live” (D&C 84:19–22; emphasis added). A righteous man who honors his priesthood and magnifies his callings blesses his family in ways that do not require the laying on of hands. Because that man worthily holds the priesthood, he stands as an agent in the place and stead of his glorious Principal. There is a light, a power, a lifting influence, a peace and security felt by family members. The priesthood administers the gospel; it reveals God’s glory; it prepares us to see his face; it opens channels of divine communication. We look forward to that glorious day when every home enjoys the sweet fruits of the priesthood, when every son and daughter, mother and father, sense powerfully that their home has begun to mirror that heavenly home we once knew."

 

I bolded the very basically relevant parts for those who don't want to read the whole thing, but reading the whole quote would probably make more sense.  

For so long in the church we have conflated priesthood with ordination and because of that we've limited the priesthood (and therefore the power and authority of God) to a handful of situations, manifested in a handful of ways.  We've kind of bullet-pointed it really, especially in our older lesson manuals.  It made it easier to teach and as long as we kept women separated from the power and authority of God, it wasn't a problem.  But now that we've begun to acknowledge that women (especially endowed women) have access to God's power and authority to, the bullet points don't work anymore.  They've actually created a lot of confusion.

Brother Millet makes an important point though.  When we expand what the priesthood is and what it does beyond the things that men do, it makes a lot more sense (at least to me).  And we can see why prayer and priesthood are both still important, even if they overlap some.  There are some things that require the use of priesthood power from an ordained source, and other times, priesthood power is used and manifested without it.  Both are valid and we don't need to worry about being able to tell the difference between the two most of the time.

Quote

Now while it is necessary and appropriate to draw some distinctions, it may be less helpful to do so when it comes to delineating what portion of the Lord’s power is utilized at a given time. For example, can we always discern whether an individual was influenced by the Light of Christ rather than the Holy Ghost? Can we clearly and accurately explain the difference between the Holy Spirit of Promise and the spirit and power of Elijah? Do we suppose, for example, that our Father in Heaven and his Son Jesus Christ use one power for one situation and then somehow shift gears for another? Does the Lord grant “faith power” to those of the world whose hearts are pure and desires are earnest, but send “priesthood power” when an elder or high priest is involved in the administration? Elder McConkie pointed out that “in the broadest sense, priesthood and faith, the two welded together as one, constitute the power by which the worlds were and are and everlastingly shall be made.”

But since the topic of the OP is about a time when Pres. Nelson very much felt like the differences were important, I also found this in the same Millet talk:  "Well then, what is the difference between a prayer and a priesthood ordinance? When one operates by and through the power of the priesthood, he is acting in the name and by the sacred power of God; that is, he is standing in the place of God, is acting for and in his behalf. There has been given to this man—and again, this comes by ordination—what might be called a divine investiture of authority. God is the Principal, and the human servant is the agent—the servant’s speech and actions cannot, must not, be independent of the one whom he represents. “Wherefore, as ye are agents, ye are on the Lord’s errand; and whatever ye do according to the will of the Lord is the Lord’s business” (D&C 64:29). If there were cause to do so, if the heavens were in agreement, and if the priesthood holder were prompted and properly directed to do so, he could pronounce in the name of the Lord that a specific consequence should come to pass, in this case a healing. His words would not be in the form of a prayer or a request. This would not entail asking God to bless the suffering one. It would be in the form of “We bless you that. . . .”

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

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?  

I'd say no less power and no less effective for the purpose of the blessing alone. However: Posted 20 hours ago

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I disagree.  I think he's right, as our friend @MustardSeed has pointed out, that putting one's hands on the head of another isn't required for one to pray for another [or for oneself] (and, certainly, prayers are supposed to be spiritually organic).  President Nelson isn't saying that Priesthood blessings aren't supposed to be spiritually organic.  Rather, he's saying that, while both prayers and Priesthood administrations are supposed to be organic, they are different in that Priesthood holders are authorized to pronounce specific blessings upon the recipient, and not simply to request blessings on the recipient's behalf.

I think you are exactly right, that bolded part is the difference.  

But I like what Pres. Oaks has taught in the past about the topic (though in regards to a blessing of healing, not a father's blessing).  I think this quote has already been brought up once but I'm going to do it again:  “However, like most who officiate in healing blessings, I have often struggled with uncertainty on the words I should say. For a variety of causes, every elder experiences increases and decreases in his level of sensitivity to the promptings of the Spirit. Every elder who gives a blessing is subject to influence by what he desires for the person afflicted. Each of these and other mortal imperfections can influence the words we speak.” He then went on to explain that the words spoken within the blessing “are not essential to its healing effect. If faith is sufficient and if the Lord wills it, the afflicted person will be healed or blessed whether the officiator speaks those words or not.” 

[Senator]

47 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@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.

Thank you for being able to articulate this. I obviously haven't been able to.

We are presented with a concept of priesthood power, which is ethereal, "paranormal", non-descript, and needs belief,  yet come under correction when we fail to understand it. 

It's a real struggle for some  in faith systems when the professed ideals don't always equate to our lived experience. 

Edited August 22, 2025 by Senator

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

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?  
 

 

When it comes to healing, I don't think they are different at all.

Robert Millet taught this in a paper published by BYU:

"What then is the difference between a man who holds the priesthood administering to the sick and a person who prays with great faith? We have seen often enough that the outcome may not be different at all: the sick are healed by the prayer of faith (see James 5:14–15; D&C 46:20), and the sick are healed by the power of the priesthood (see Mark 6:13; D&C 42:44)." 

[Senator]

44 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 they are different in that Priesthood holders are authorized to pronounce specific blessings upon the recipient, and not simply to request blessings on the recipient's behalf.

Even if the pronouncement is from the will of the priesthood holder and not from the spirit?

So we are simply dealing with the distinction between pronouncing a blessing, and requesting a blessing? Both of which, I think you will agree, are predicated on the will of the Lord to fulfill.  Elder Oaks quote, which you supplied, indicates this.  So, while I can understand there is a difference in the "feel" to the different verbiage,  I think the outcome is the same.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@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.

"Command" is the correct word.

Pres. Nelson shared the experience with a hope that folks would do the work to understand the power which they hold (to open the heavens and direct angels) not to personally criticize one man. It seems some are unwilling to be circumspect and learn how to do better, but would rather criticize the President of the Church.

[Senator]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"Command" is the correct word.

Pres. Nelson shared the experience with a hope that folks would do the work to understand the power which they hold (to open the heavens and direct angels) not to personally criticize one man. It seems some are unwilling to be circumspect and learn how to do better, but would rather criticize the President of the Church.

Save your judgements ZS, they are not helpful.

[Kenngo1969]

25 minutes ago, Senator said:

Even if the pronouncement is from the will of the priesthood holder and not from the spirit?

No.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"Command" is the correct word.

Pres. Nelson shared the experience with a hope that folks would do the work to understand the power which they hold (to open the heavens and direct angels) not to personally criticize one man. It seems some are unwilling to be circumspect and learn how to do better, but would rather criticize the President of the Church.

I don't think we should discount the importance of "wrestling" with the Lord over this kind of stuff. 

I can't think of any gospel knowledge that I have obtained that did not start out as a wrestle with something that did not make any sense to me.  For me, it's the wrestle that takes a principle or doctrine from "learned" to "believe and/or know." The act of trying to get past the wrestle is where the vast bulk of my testimony comes from.  Without questioning, disagreeing, being suspicious of things leaders have said, I would be much further down the ladder than I currently am.

I do think we have to lean into faith and against our biases and doubt in our wrestles, because things can easily go the wrong way if we feed the wrong sources.  But I don't see this discussion as anyone's unwillingness to be circumspect.  I think most of the posts demonstrate a willingness to engage, and I think that's always a good thing.    

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, Senator said:

Even if the pronouncement is from the will of the priesthood holder and not from the spirit?

So we are simply dealing with the distinction between pronouncing a blessing, and requesting a blessing? Both of which, I think you will agree, are predicated on the will of the Lord to fulfill.  Elder Oaks quote, which you supplied, indicates this.  So, while I can understand there is a difference in the "feel" to the different verbiage,  I think the outcome is the same.

The outcome is the same only when the outcome is the same. However, the outcome can appear the same on one level but not prove to be the same on another: Posted 21 hours ago

[Senator]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The outcome is the same only when the outcome is the same. However, the outcome can appear the same on one level but not prove to be the same on another: Posted 21 hours ago

Clear as mud

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, Senator said:

Clear as mud

Any point or question in particular?

[Senator]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Any point or question in particular?

Yep, many

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Rather, he's saying that, while both prayers and Priesthood administrations are supposed to be organic, they are different in that Priesthood holders are authorized to pronounce specific blessings upon the recipient, and not simply to request blessings on the recipient's behalf.

Do you believe one has more power than another or are they just different?  And if different, in what way?

Sharing my own answer since I am thinking about it now, anticipating others, wondering what they will say….

I see them as different vehicles rather than inherently different in power, though I lean towards blessings potentially being easier to access God’s power and authority because of the way that power and authority appears to be shared with the person doing the blessing.  If the source of the power of both priesthood blessings and prayer is God’s love and will for us, it seems unlikely that there is only one vehicle for receiving blessings that is inherently greater in power, especially if that vehicle was very, very limited in who could use it.

Perhaps the difference is simply in how it provides a different opportunity for some to learn how to align their wills with God’s will, something we all must learn to do eventually and have many different opportunities, imo, in doing so.

But all this gets very confusing to me if I try to fold in why church leaders removed the opportunity for women to participate in this way outside the very few performing ordinances in the temple.

The authorized aspect of ordinances is quite understandable to me when it comes to conveying authority if one accepts God’s Church as having a specific structure and line of authority (ordinances that set apart as teachers, priesthood holders, even as members though that isn’t usually described in that fashion).  It’s in the healing and other blessings conveying gifts from God that are not tied directly to the Church where I get confused.  Logically why would God tie an opportunity to Church office that was needed and desired outside of church function?  If the purpose is to provide greater opportunities to learn for the giver of the healing ordinance, why take this opportunity away from women?  (Serious question, not a challenge, I fully accept there can be other reasons that meant there is more benefit overall by limiting the numbers of those who give authorized healing blessings, including focus on the person receiving the blessing***….though the way priesthood holders are encouraged, almost begged at times it seems to me to exercise this gift seems to contradict the idea there is a reason to limit the number of those who have this authority, which makes me even more interested in hearing others’ ideas on the whys.)

I have read removal of repetition as one reason why church leaders removed the gift of giving authorized healing blessing from women (women gave blessings and then they would call the elders as well, but why not just instruct either blessing was sufficient?).  Is there instruction one shouldn’t request multiple priesthood blessings for the same thing?

What other reasons have people heard for switching to solely elders’ blessings that might inform (or further confuse) the questions that have been posed in this thread?

added:  this is CV’s earlier contribution that I just came across again as I am refreshing and catching up, which btw I think has great potential for adding to understanding if correct.

Quote

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.

***I can see one benefit of limiting the numbers of people who can give such blessings being the effort it takes for the person who desires these blessings to request such blessings.  Psychologically humans appear to be typically more invested, value more that which we have to work for.  Maybe the act of requesting a blessing being made a bit more difficult helps open that person up more to the Spirit, primes them for listening and receiving.  This may explain partial limitation among those who have access, but does not explain why the vast majority of humanity doesn’t even have the opportunity to receive this type of blessings from any authorized person at all (which leads me to believe prayer, structured or unstructured as in just a pleading from the heart to God one may not even know exists, can be as effective in healing and other blessings as an authorized healing blessing if God so wills it)

Matthew 7:9-11

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?  10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?  11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Of course, this then gets into how do we know something is actually a good gift, linking into the other thread “God is Mean”.

Edited August 22, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Except we did administer healing blessings and even anointed in those blessings.

That needs to be included in the analysis of what is going on.

Edited August 22, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, Senator said:

Yep, many

Ok please share.

[Senator]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Ok please share.

No, I realize that hearing more explanations is no longer helpful, and not what is needed.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

I do think knowing that God has authorized one to command a blessing can help open one up to inspiration to do so.

Do you see the words mattering?  Or the type of authority?  If one does not have the priesthood authority received through the Restored Gospel, do you believe other authority can be given by God so that those who command in blessings are actually doing so and not just giving essentially a prayer of faith, no matter how inspired?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

they are different in that Priesthood holders are authorized to pronounce specific blessings upon the recipient, and not simply to request blessings on the recipient's behalf.

Besides the specific blessing of the ordinance of naming, what are the specific blessings that are to be given in such a blessing?

[Calm]

Btw, I don’t remember if this was posted or not, but for those who want to quote Pres Hinckley’s 2018 talk, here is a link to the transcript:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/ministering-with-the-power-and-authority-of-god?lang=eng

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except we did administer healing blessings and even anointed in those blessings.

Yes, that was the case at one point in time, but not nowadays. It appeared to be more on the order of a prayer, an exercise of the spiritual gift, or an expression of faith, hope and charity than a priesthood administration. A blessing, not a prayer, not a priesthood blessing. What was the genesis of the practice or custom, and the First Presidency's explanation for the change? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/healing?lang=eng 

I suppose this at one time might have contributed to confusion over the difference between a blessing and a priesthood blessing, but the difference is literally and concisely spelled out in what they are called. It is more expansively spelled out in all the revelations on priesthood, which are often referred to "mysteries" but not "confusions."

ETA: I noted you edited your post to include: "That needs to be included in the analysis of what is going on." What specifically is going on?

Edited August 22, 2025 by CV75

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Besides the specific blessing of the ordinance of naming, what are the specific blessings that are to be given in such a blessing?

When I say, "specific blessings," I'm not referring to "specific," as in, "set forth in some sort of liturgy" somewhere, but, rather, specific blessings as the Spirit directs.