I guess I am trying to make things to simple, but I am just trying to understand the difference between a “person” and a “being”. Now, I also need to know the difference between “distinct” and “separate.”
The difference between “distinct” and “separate”, within its Trinitarian theological usage, was already given, and quoted by you in your last post. Again, “distinct” means that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not each other. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost. The Son is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father nor the Son. They are really distinct from each other, as we see at Christ’s baptism in the Bible. “Not separate” means that they have an eternal relationship with each other, a mutual interdependence, where they eternally exist as the Trinity. There was never a time when they did not exist as the Trinity. There was never a time when any Person of the Trinity did not exist. Their unity, as the Trinity, is eternal. You cannot have the Father without the Son. You cannot have the Son without the Father. You cannot have the Holy Ghost without the Father. Etc. Trinitarians therefore avoid saying that they are “separate” Persons because that can imply a degree of separation as relates to their individual existence that isn’t there.
This contrasts with the LDS view of the Godhead, as already mentioned, where the Godhead has not existed as such for eternity. There was a time when the Son did not exist as a member of the Godhead, until He was spiritually begotten, as we all were, by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, and He became the Savior after the Council of Heaven. The same goes for the Holy Ghost, another begotten son of God. Joseph Smith taught that the Persons entered into an “everlasting covenant”, so they therefore became “the Godhead” through agreement. This contrasts with the Trinitarian view where the Trinity exists as such by nature. Therefore, there is a “separation” in the LDS Godhead that isn’t found in the orthodox Trinity.
Frank Sheed provides a very concise and easy to understand definition of the Trinity in his book
Theology and Sanity, in the chapter “Three Persons in One Nature”. It is important to realize that “Being” in Trinitarian theology is used interchangeably with “Nature”, “Essence”, or “Substance”. We see this in the CCC. Remember, these are English translations of the Greek word “ousia”. I prefer “Nature” over “Being”, because it gets to the actual point that is being made. So when you read the below, you can substitute “being” for “nature” in answer to your question.
"Nature answers the question what we are; person answers the question who we are…By our nature, then, we are what we are. It follows that by our nature we do what we do: for every being acts according to what it is…Although my nature is the source of all my actions, although my nature decides what kind of operations are possible for me, it is not my nature that does them: I do them, I the person. The person is that which does the actions, the nature is that by virtue of which the actions are done, or, better, that from which the actions are drawn."
So simply, “Being” means nature, or what something is (another Trinitarian author uses the phrase “the attributes of divinity” when defining the word in the theological context). For Trintiarians, only God is God. Man is of a different nature than God. For Mormons, God and man are of the same nature, God is just more advanced, or further along in His progression. “Person” refers to the “who”, or an individual entity or existence.
As an aside, I’m always intrigued when I see LDS authors saying “separate
and distinct”. Not sure if there’s a theological reasoning behind using both words.
.