JamesThePersian said:
...we still baptise infants, because, for us at least, it is not just a washing away of sin.
We believe that baptism is more than just a washing away of sin, too. We see it as the means by which a person enters into a covenant relationship with his Savior. In other words, it's the third step in making a commitment to Him (the first two being faith in Him and reptentence for one's sins). We just see this commitment as being something a person can't really make as an infant.
I am rather perplexed by this idea that you cannot sin at all unless you know you're doing it? Do you really mean that or do you rather mean that you are not held responsible for such a sin? There's a distinct difference. Sin in Greek (sorry, but I don't know Hebrew so I shall restrict this to the NT, though I'd be interested to know how the Hebrew compares if somebody can explain) is amartia. This translates literally as 'missing the mark' which pretty much means falling short of God's standards. It seems to me that it's quite possible to miss the mark without knowing you are doing so. That doesn't mean that God will take note of it in the way He might a wilfull sin.
I wasn't aware of the Greek interpretation of the word, and from that perspective, I can see where you're coming from. But, consider the dictionary definition of the word "sin." The word is defined there as "any voluntary transgression of a religious law or moral principle." I think the word "voluntary" is significant, as it implies both knowledge and choice. I guess it gets down to what "falling short of God's standards" really means. I have a hard time imagining that God would consider a person to have fallen short of a standard if he didn't know the first thing about the standard.
I don't know if Mormons confess before a priest or alone or whatever but I'm sure you must confess in some way at some time. Don't you ask forgiveness for any sins you might have unwittingly made as well as those you know about?
We do confess serious sins, but these would always be sins we are fully aware of having committed.
I would say that children, for instance, certainly can fall short (sin) but that they are not held accountable until they understand. Is this actually what you mean?
Well, again, I understand your logic. About the best I can say is that the process is a gradual one. No one gains awareness of sin overnight, and I believe we are held accountable to the extent that we understand what we're dong.
In the case of the Fall, however, I fail to see how you can argue that there was no sin at all. Do you really need to understand good and evil to be able to see that you ought not to disobey one who loves you and gives you life? I wouldn't have said so. Small children usually know they ought to obey their parents without understanding why. It seems to me that Adam and Eve did sin, even if only in the way a child might, without full understanding of what they did.
You know what? I think our beliefs are actually very similar in this respect. I think that it's the words we're accustomed to using that are getting in the way of our understanding one another's position.