The Nehor wrote:
1) Save space, you say this is ridiulous but the Book of Mormon is not primarily a historical text. If some puritan had decided to write a religious history of his colony on landing in America with the intent of conversion he would have included stories about prominent leaders doing good things, some stories that warn about bad people, interpretations of scripture, and any spiritual communication he thought was relevant. He might leave out entirely the encounters with natives unless he thought them worth mentioning.
2) He forgot, assuming it was obvious. It was a reality he'd lived with for so long it may not have even occured to him that someone would think otherwise.
Ok. This is where we part ways. I seriously don't think anyone would "leave out entirely the encourters with natives". Just simply, no. People are such an integral part of our very existence and life. It just wouldn't happen. (And hasn't happened, ever, except the Book of Mormon). Even in the most basic of "religous" elements, there would be talk of missionary work. No. Noone just "forgets" or "leaves out". Sorry.
I see nothing odd about a small group of people achieving dominance culturally and politically very fast. Think British Empire. A few settlers show up, marry the natives, and run the area. They had a more advanced culture, literacy, and military (with Laban's sword and any other weapons they brought). If they didn't come as conquerors and mistreat those they found I can see them becoming dominant within a generation.
One, the differences between the Britsh Empire and the people as portrayed in the Book of Mormon are too many to list. No good.
Two, if, say, they were able to penetrate, influence and rule over a society in such manner, then that would definetly be something to write about.