“Strictly speaking, the Law of Moses consists of the first five books of the Old Testament-what the Jews call the Torah. These five books of Moses (Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; and Deuteronomy) are also called the Pentateuch, but in the New Testament they are usually just “the Law.” Sometimes the term “the Law” was used for the whole Old Testament, but usually a distinction was made between the books of Moses (the Law) and those of subsequent prophets (the Prophets); hence, the custom in Jesus’ time of referring to the Hebrew scriptures as “the Law and the Prophets” (for example, Matt. 5:17; Matt. 7:12).

The Law was revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and came to be respected even by the gentiles for its antiquity and its comprehensive fairness. By the time of Jesus, it had stood as the criminal, civil, and religious code of the Jewish people for well over a thousand years. It had guided them in every aspect of human activity for so long that Jews found it difficult to conceive of life without “the Law” (Stephen E. Robinson, “The Law after Christ,” Ensign, Sep 1983, 69).

Robinson, who was at the time the article was written, an assistant professor of religion in Pennsylvania, explained that many Jews were angry at Jesus for teaching that the law of Moses was a temporary and lesser law, because it had become for them, “identified as the divine will itself-perfect, absolute, forever unchanging and unchangeable. The Law was thought of as the will of God exactly, precisely expressed; therefore, any deviation at all from the letter of the Law of Moses was also deviation from God. There was no room for flexibility or “extenuating circumstances.”

Jesus lived the Law of Moses and taught his followers to do the same until the atonement was fulfilled. He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18 in the New Testament of the King James Bible).

When Jesus atoned for our sins, the Law of Moses was fulfilled and the people could take on a higher law.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets,” Jesus said. “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt. 5:17). The meaning of this verse may be amplified by an alternate translation: “Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets, I have come not to abolish but to complete, to make their meaning full.” 1 The Hebrew word Torah, which literally means “teaching or doctrine,” is rendered in the New Testament by the Greek word nomes, which means “law.” Therefore, what Jesus was conveying is that whenever He spoke of or taught from the law of Moses, He would render a fuller or more complete meaning. The law had been given to Moses by Jehovah, who was now upon the earth in His mortal ministry as Jesus Christ; therefore it was His prerogative to make the meaning of the law, the teachings, and the doctrine “full” and “complete.”

Jesus used the law of Moses as it was intended to purify lives and teach of salvation through the Messiah. The law of Moses, correctly understood and applied, would raise the natural man to a spiritual level and fortify him against the cunning of the devil. (See Thomas F. Olmstead, “The Savior’s Use of the Old Testament,” Ensign, Jul 2002, 47.)

Olmstead also pointed out that Jesus used the law to help explain his own actions, such as healing on the Sabbath. He taught the law. Olmstead explains, “Jesus did not reject the Law of Moses-the Torah-as found in the Old Testament. Rather, He used it to affirm its own truthfulness and give a more complete meaning.” Mormons refer to the more complete meaning as the higher law.

For the Jewish people of the time, this was difficult to understand. Robinson explained, “Furthermore, most Jews of Jesus’ day had come to believe that salvation came only by observance of the Law of Moses as the highest possible expression of God’s will, and in no other way.”

In contrast, James Faust, a former Mormon leader in modern times, said, “…the intent of a person alone becomes part of the rightness or wrongness of human action. So our intent to do evil or our desire to do good will be a freestanding element of consideration of our actions. We are told we will be judged in part by the intent of our hearts.” (See James E. Faust, “The Surety of a Better Testament,” Ensign, Sep 2003, 2-6.) This was the law introduced by Jesus during his ministry. Although obedience is required, so is intent and faith. A person must also believe, not just carry out the appropriate actions. This is a change from what was taught in Jesus’ day.

Jesus taught his followers to obey the law and then to take it a step higher. He taught that the law said that to commit adultery was a sin, and that the higher law was that it was a sin even to contemplate adultery or to think about someone other than your spouse in an inappropriate way. It was no longer enough to be just physically faithful to your spouse-you had to be emotionally faithful as well. While the law taught not to kill, Jesus added the requirement to avoid anger at the person. It was no longer enough just to avoid killing him. Each law was taken to a higher level, requiring more faith on the part of believers.

One important part of the law was the law of sacrifice. The Israelites were required to sacrifice their animals. Christians today are taught instead to sacrifice themselves. Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice by dying for our sins, and each Sabbath, we take a sacrament of bread and water to remember that sacrifice. But we are also required to make personal sacrifices. God asks of us to give up our worldly desires and focus our lives around Him. The greater our faith, the better able we are to sacrifice for God.

Elder Ballard taught, “While the law of Moses was fulfilled, the principles of the law of sacrifice continue to be part of the doctrine of the Church. The primary purpose of the law of sacrifice still is to test us and assist us in coming unto Christ. After the Savior’s ultimate sacrifice, two adjustments were made in the practice of this law. First, the ordinance of the sacrament replaced the ordinance of sacrifice; and second, this change moved the focus of the sacrifice from a person’s animal to the person himself. In a sense, the sacrifice changed from the offering to the offerer.”

What does the Law of Moses mean to a Mormon? In the early days of the church, Robinson says this was a major issue of concern to those who belonged to the church, particularly to those who converted to Judaism. They wanted to know the restored gospel was an addition to the law of Moses or if it was an entirely new law. Jesus had answered that question quite clearly in his earthly ministry. It was a law designed to lead people to Jesus and to help them understand the sacrifices He would make for them. The law was fulfilled by the atonement of Jesus. Aspects of it, including sacrifice, continue to be a part of the gospel, but in a more personal way, through personal sacrifice of selfishness and worldliness, not animal sacrifice. The law of Moses did not have the power to save us-only the atonement could do that. Despite this, it was an important step in the progression of man.

Adam and Eve were created by Heavenly Father and placed into a peaceful place to begin their lives. We can think of this as replacing the protected childhood of most people. Here they had everything they could want and only one request to obey. This allowed them time to settle into their marriage and the unfamiliar world in which they were placed, and they could have chosen to stay there forever, had they wanted to do so. However, their progress would be very limited if they did so. They would not have children or progress through a normal lifespan. This would also mean they could not fulfill the purposes for which they were sent.

The story of Adam and Eve really begins long before their birth. Prior to the creation of the world, God createdspirits. These spirits had the form of the people who live on earth today, but did not have bodies. They did, however, have personality, talents, and the right to make choices. Each developed in his own way, becoming something of the person he would be on earth.

When life is too comfortable, progress is limited. God, wanting us to progress further, told us He would create for us a world. We would be able, when we came there, to have a body and a family. We would have a figurative veil drawn over us so we would be unable to remember our time in God’s presence. However, the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Ghost would testify to us quietly when we learned truth, if we were sincerely seeking truth. In this way, we’d be able to find our way back.

In order for this life to have meaning, we had to face trials, tribulation, hard work, and choices. In the Garden of Eden, none of that was possible. Adam and Eve understood they faced two conflicting set of instructions-to avoid the fruit of the tree and to go forth and multiply. Today, we often face conflicting instructions from God. For instance, a child is commanded to honor and obey his parents, but then might face a situation in which a parent instructs him to break another commandment. The child must then choose which commandment to obey. One of the challenges of mortal life is to use our agency and our wisdom to decide which commandment is the better part for that particular situation.

Adam and Eve would not raise a family in the shelter of the garden. Had they selfishly chosen to remain, we could not have come to earth. Eve chose the better part when she chose motherhood and made a decision to leave the garden, even though it meant hardship, suffering, and death, not just for her, but for all of us. It was the only way life on earth could have meaning and purpose.

Lehi, the first prophet of the Book of Mormon, explained it this way:

If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall.” (2 Nephi 2:22-26)

These verses help us to understand that the ranges of emotion are essential to our learning in this mortal life. We can’t recognize or appreciate joy until we’ve experienced heartache. We couldn’t appreciate the pleasure of making good choices until we knew how sin affected our spirits. To experience all of this, we had to be in the world, not in the garden.

Mormons do not believe in original sin. The church has a statement of thirteen articles of faith, written by Joseph Smith. The second says, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” While there are certainly consequences for our own lives in their choice, including that of death, the atonement protects us from being directly held responsible for another person’s choice.

Jesus Christ, in that same pre-mortal life, offered to serve as our redeemer. He alone would live a sinless life and then would atone for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, and following that, die for us on the cross. This made it possible for us to repent and be forgiven for our sins, and to live again after death. Because He atoned for our sins, we are not accountable for the choices made by Adam and Eve. We are accountable for only our own sins, and can repent only for those sins we ourselves committed.

We don’t have a very complete record of Adam and Eve’s time on earth, and so we don’t know a great deal about the thought process that went on. We do know that God’s plan for us was carried out.

Dallin H. Oaks, an apostle, helps us to understand the nature of the choice made by Adam and Eve, and explains how Mormons view them:

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).

Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall (see Bruce R. McConkie, “Eve and the Fall,” Woman, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979, pp. 67-68). Joseph Smith taught that it was not a “sin,” because God had decreed it (see The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980, p. 63). Brigham Young declared, “We should never blame Mother Eve, not the least” (in Journal of Discourses, 13:145). Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56, 1:114-15).

This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin-inherently wrong-but a transgression-wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “‘The Great Plan of Happiness‘,” Ensign, Nov 1993, 72)