Difference between Godhead and Trinity?

The main difference is with the second view of the Trinity you quoted – the “threefold personality of one Divine Being”.

MANY Christians see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three distinct Beings – which is why I am bemused when our view of the Godhead is called non-Christian. However, MANY Christians also see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as nothing more than different names / titles for the same Being. That second view, obviously, isn’t consistent with the New Testament, which is why the explanations that support it are so convaluted – but there are many Christians who believe it, nonetheless.

The “real” difference for those who have the same view of three Beings in the Trinity / Godhead isn’t the COMPOSITION of the Trinity / Godhead as much as the NATURE of God / Godhood. That’s the fundamental argument others have with the Mormon construct – at least, the one that makes some degree of sense. I think the Bible is much clearer than the Book of Mormon, ironically, when it comes to the nature of God / Godhood, but that irony is lost on nearly all Christians.

Yes, there is. In the Trinity, the three parts are one being. In the Godhead, three unconnected beings co-operate.

MANY Christians see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three distinct Beings – which is why I am bemused when our view of the Godhead is called non-Christian.

I come from a Trinitarian background, and I can assure you it’s actually a complex belief that most people not from this background don’t get.

No one in orthodox (small “o”) Christianity considers them three separate beings, in fact, we used to sing hymns about this, say creeds etc. It’s much more rigidly enforced than the Godhead idea in Mormonism.

My idea is that Mormonism still has a hangover from its Trinitarian origins, that’s never quite gone away. In the old “heresies” of early Christianity, there weren’t these hangovers… The Book of Mormon retains some trinitarian doctrine even after revisions.

Mormons believe God has a body of flesh and bone, while traditional Christians don’t.

Yes and no. Jesus does, the Holy Ghost doesn’t, but God the Father has a slight problem in this area. We tended to see him as an omnipresent force, but we also had the stories about God the Father being an old man with a beard, or having Jesus sitting on his right hand (despite being the same being)

To tell the truth, the Trinity is actually quite a mindbending concept, much harder to grasp than the Godhead, but I understand both. To understand the Trinity, you have to use intuition rather than logic. The Godhead on the other hand is fairly easy to explain to a non-believer.

He also claims that is why BY taught the Adam God theory, because Jesus is our FH and needed someone to be the mortal father oh his body, and choose Adam.

SamBee sounds perfectly credible to me. I was gonna say that we can’t really wax eloquent about the Trinity. But SamBee apparently can. Seeing God as other than three persons or as other than one being (or one in essence) is not trinitarian and not orthodox. Recall that the creed says “Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.” Either heresy is unacceptable to the educated trinitarians. You could read The Shack (see the thread at the Book Reviews forum here) for a better appreciation perhaps.

That said, I’m not sure I can make any judgement about how useful or “true” either the Godhead or the Trinity are. I totally believe in God and Heaven, but theological concepts like those are too rigid and inflexible for me. You can’t really put the Infinite into such a conceptual box.

SamBee sounds perfectly credible to me. I was gonna say that we can’t really wax eloquent about the Trinity. But SamBee apparently can. Seeing God as other than three persons or as other than one being (or one in essence) is not trinitarian and not orthodox. Recall that the creed says “Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.” Either heresy is unacceptable to the educated trinitarians. You could read The Shack (see the thread at the Book Reviews forum here) for a better appreciation perhaps.

That said, I’m not sure I can make any judgement about how useful or “true” either the Godhead or the Trinity are. I totally believe in God and Heaven, but theological concepts like those are too rigid and inflexible for me. You can’t really put the Infinite into such a conceptual box.

Seeing the Trinity from the inside is complicated enough, understanding it from the outside much more difficult.

The Godhead is an easy concept by comparison frankly. It’s one area in which the church is less complicated than the mainstream! (Our concept of the Afterlife on the other hand, is best understood from the inside.)

What I do agree with the LDS on is that the Bible doesn’t spell out the notion of the Trinity specifically at all, so it’s amazing that most churches follow.

Here is part of the Nicene Creed. I can vouch that many churches make their members say that, as I’ve been around quite a few:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

The Athanasian Creed is not generally repeated in churches like the Nicene Creed, but forms a very important doctrinal underpinning for most of them. (Note also that “catholic” here does not mean “Roman Catholic”, Protestants use this too):

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

2. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

3. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance

4. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.

5. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

6. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.

7. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

8. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

9. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

10. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

11. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

12. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;

13. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

14. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

15. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.

18. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;

19. so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.

20. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

21. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

22. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

23. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

24. And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.

25. But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.

26. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

27. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

28. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

29. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

30. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.

31. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

32. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

33. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

34. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.

35. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

36. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

37. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

38. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;

39. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

40. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

41. And shall give account of their own works.

42. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

43. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

To follow up on what Sam said, “catholic” means “universal” – which is why Protestants can use that term in that way.

It’s interesting to me that this issue is pretty much the ONLY difference between our beliefs and the beliefs expressed in the Nicene Creed – when you factor for semantic differences in word usage. With this exception, the Nicene Creed might as well be a Mormon statement of doctrine.

The Protestant Creeds (like the Westminster Confession), otoh, are radically different in multiple ways than Mormon doctrine – which is why I think it is crystal clear that it was the Protestant Creeds which are referenced in Joseph’s account of the First Vision. There is no indication Joseph ever considered the Catholic Church as one he might join – which is a fascinating discussion in and of itself. It makes sense, for multiple reasons, but that’s a discussion for another thread.

So, in summary, this question really is THE central difference, imo – even though I still maintain that many Christians (a small but measurable minority) don’t argue about the Trinity being made up of different Beings acting as one. I’ve been corrected in the past when I used to believe there was nobody else who believed that – and I’ve heard enough people who do believe it that I am convinced there are more than we commonly assume. It’s not the idea that there are three Gods that bother many people; it’s the idea that WE can become like God (gods in our own right) that gets pretty much everyone’s blood boiling.

This thread got me thinking about the pre-1990 temple ceremony with the sectarian minister speaking with Lucifer and Adam. I won’t quote it here out of respect but for those of you who remember, it was pretty darn blunt. The sectarian minister started with “Do you believe in a god with parts or passions, etc., etc.”

Just thinking……