What is the Difference Between a Blessing and a Prayer

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

As much as I love President Hinckley, and President Monson after him, that would be President Nelson.    (On the other hand, it would really be news if President Hinckley gave an address in General Conference in 2018!)   

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you see the words mattering?

Not in a ritual way, but words also reflect the person's inner state. "I/we hope God will heal you" could reflect an inner uncertainty or an inner certainty that God won't heal someone but they don't want to actually say that or could be their way of not leaning confidently into the inspiration present. "I/we command you to take up your bed and walk." could be a reflection of the person's confidence or could be a reflection of their arrogance. I can't speak for Pres. Nelson, but I think the end goal for sincere blessing-givers is to do your best to discern God's will and put that discernment into words for the benefit of the receiver.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Or the type of authority?

Ever since "Spiritual Treasures," I'm leaning more and more into a priesthood of all believers kind of model, where "type of authority" only matters for those ordinances/sacraments that are "ecclesiastical" in nature (baptism, confirmation, sacrament, for example). In the specific case mentioned in the OP, it was a parent/father performing the ecclesiastical ordinance of naming a child before creating a church membership record for that child (not that the record wouldn't be created without the ritual) with the bishop and membership clerk standing by creating the record. But many other circumstances of a parent wanting to bless a child could easily be done by either father (whether formally ordained or not) or mother. A few years ago, when I was diagnosed with cancer, in addition to calling in some friends from church to give me a blessing, I often wish I had had .... something (precedent or guidance or something) ... to ask my wife to give me a blessing. Simply by virtue of being married, I now feel like she has authority over me sufficient to give me a blessing. At the bottom of this slippery slope (introduced to me by Pres. Nelson's Spiritual Treasures talk) is that one can pronounce a blessing simply by the authority granted by being a believer who feels inspired to give a blessing. I know that it's awful Protestant of me; so be it.

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

Based on current rhetoric, I feel like the church is tying a lot of this to the temple endowment rather than priesthood ordination, so the current rhetoric would lean towards that this kind of authority must come from the Restored Gospel. To me, this feels like a slippery slope. Once we drop the requirement for formal priesthood ordination for giving blessings, it seems kind of arbitrary to stop at receiving endowment or being baptized. I can see how these represent footholds on the slippery slope, but I think it would take more to explain why our currently chosen foothold is where God chooses to stop granting authority to give blessings.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As much as I love President Hinckley, and President Monson after him, that would be President Nelson.    (On the other hand, it would really be news if President Hinckley gave an address in General Conference in 2018!)   

I am posting between cleaning the house for my sister’s visit…or maybe cleaning the house between posting.  Can’t make up my mind which is supposed to be my primary focus apparently.

Pres. Hinckley is for whatever reason firmly embedded in my brain as President of the Church.  Always takes a bit of effort to remember it’s someone else now and I obviously am not making the effort above, lol

[CV75]

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Not in a ritual way, but words also reflect the person's inner state. "I/we hope God will heal you" could reflect an inner uncertainty or an inner certainty that God won't heal someone but they don't want to actually say that or could be their way of not leaning confidently into the inspiration present. "I/we command you to take up your bed and walk." could be a reflection of the person's confidence or could be a reflection of their arrogance. I can't speak for Pres. Nelson, but I think the end goal for sincere blessing-givers is to do your best to discern God's will and put that discernment into words for the benefit of the receiver.

Ever since "Spiritual Treasures," I'm leaning more and more into a priesthood of all believers kind of model, where "type of authority" only matters for those ordinances/sacraments that are "ecclesiastical" in nature (baptism, confirmation, sacrament, for example). In the specific case mentioned in the OP, it was a parent/father performing the ecclesiastical ordinance of naming a child before creating a church membership record for that child (not that the record wouldn't be created without the ritual) with the bishop and membership clerk standing by creating the record. But many other circumstances of a parent wanting to bless a child could easily be done by either father (whether formally ordained or not) or mother. A few years ago, when I was diagnosed with cancer, in addition to calling in some friends from church to give me a blessing, I often wish I had had .... something (precedent or guidance or something) ... to ask my wife to give me a blessing. Simply by virtue of being married, I now feel like she has authority over me sufficient to give me a blessing. At the bottom of this slippery slope (introduced to me by Pres. Nelson's Spiritual Treasures talk) is that one can pronounce a blessing simply by the authority granted by being a believer who feels inspired to give a blessing. I know that it's awful Protestant of me; so be it.

 

Based on current rhetoric, I feel like the church is tying a lot of this to the temple endowment rather than priesthood ordination, so the current rhetoric would lean towards that this kind of authority must come from the Restored Gospel. To me, this feels like a slippery slope. Once we drop the requirement for formal priesthood ordination for giving blessings, it seems kind of arbitrary to stop at receiving endowment or being baptized. I can see how these represent footholds on the slippery slope, but I think it would take more to explain why our currently chosen foothold is where God chooses to stop granting authority to give blessings.

I thought the priesthood of all believers means that we directly approach God without an intermediary (other than Christ of course). And we certainly do. However, as long as Christ is our only Intermediary, we have His Church to reckon with. For this reason, the priesthood power that endowed women possess, and that anyone not holding a priesthood office possesses by faith, is not the priesthood of all believers; there is no appeal to formal delegated priesthood authority in the more general priesthood of all believers.

“Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. The Church is the instrument He has created to accomplish the essential work of redeeming mankind in this last gospel dispensation just as in the dispensation when He lived upon the earth…

“To accomplish these grand purposes, and to prepare for the Savior’s return, the Church needs God’s ongoing direction, authority, and power. The Church is the “true and living church” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30) because Christ invests it with His leadership and power through His priesthood, “the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:3). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2025/09/03-blessed-by-priesthood-authority-and-power?lang=eng

If a man and wife want to pronounce a blessing outside of this structure, who is going to stop them? The Church will always tie everything back to Christ as do the man and wife. As to the explanation as why God chooses to stop granting authority (and the more correct description of the practice in the bygone era is permission) for women to give non-priesthood blessings as a matter of routine practice and custom is explained in an earlier link I provided: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/healing?lang=eng

What exactly do you mean by using the word “rhetoric”? – it can have a couple of connotations.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

***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”.

RE: my "earlier contribution"

I believe the gifts of the Spirit are evident in the godly walk and conversation of believers both in and out of the Church. But once the Church is introduced, two levels and attainments are evident: one that works in concert with the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the companionship of the Holy Ghost, the restored priesthood keys and order, Zion, and other elements of the fulness of the Gospel, and one that works without the fulness of the Gospel. D&C 84: 63 – 72 speaks to the gifts of the Spirit of the first kind. Operating within the Church but outside the fullness of the Gospel I think signifies a lack of understanding at best, a lack of appreciation worse, and rebellion at worst.

Regarding the role of the priesthood in unifying and strengthening of Zion (with an eye to the eternal kingdom, the Church of the Firstborn – see D&C 84: 2, 98 - 102), D&C 84: 35 – 39 reveals, “And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord; For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him. And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.” D&C 84 is all about the role of priesthood office.

D&C 107: 27, 65 – 67 speak to the binding decisions of the priesthood quorums, and that “…it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church; Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church. From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.” I would say that the laying on of hands is a uniquely a function of priesthood office for administering ordinances and blessings.

I find for these reasons (D&C 84 and 107) that it is only by the restored priesthood that blessings for healing in this life are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise and contribute to the unifying and strengthening of Zion with an eye to the Church of the Firstborn: “All …performances …that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead.” (D&C 132: 7).

The increasing focus on priesthood office over the growth of the Church (spiritually, numerically and geographically) for administering priesthood healing blessings has everything to do with these particular principles, and not with other options the saints may choose which lead to lesser long-term views and blessings. 

Edited August 23, 2025 by CV75

[CV75]

D&C 42: 43-44 might bring up an interesting question. Speaking unto the Church: “And whosoever among you are sick, and have not faith to be healed, but believe, shall be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food, and that not by the hand of an enemy. And the elders of the church, two or more, shall be called, and shall pray for and lay their hands upon them in my name; and if they die they shall die unto me, and if they live they shall live unto me.” Other verses, 47 – 52, speak to the process of healing: “And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed [by the aforementioned laying on of hands by the elders], and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed. He who hath faith to see shall see. He who hath faith to hear shall hear. The lame who hath faith to leap shall leap. And they who have not faith to do these things, but believe in me, have power to become my sons [and daughters]; and inasmuch as they break not my laws thou shalt bear their infirmities.”

What do those who do have faith to be healed access that blessing and grace? Prayer, I suppose is one way. Prayer in concert with the other instructions also. Those who don’t have that kind of faith to be healed through prayer (or whatever other associated means) call the elders, who both pray for and lay their hands on them. Do other questions, and other answers than these, come to mind?

I think it helps to see what parts of the section are directed unto members, presiding officers, priesthood holders, etc. The first 17 verses deal with missionary work of the priesthood holders, which today our sisters now perform by priesthood assignment.

Edited August 25, 2025 by CV75