The phrase “when the Lamanites found that their daughters had been missing… ” is both interesting and significant. The Lamanites expected their daughters to be off on their own for some time, thus reinforcing the hypothesis that the young women were participating in a known ritual at a known time. Their parents were concerned only after the expected time had elapsed.
Second, it is also clear that there was no direct supervision over the dancers, which doubtless facilitated the abductions.
The next similarly small but important point is that the Lamanites immediately suspected Limhi’s people. Why? The most common assumption is that the traditional hatred between Lamanites and Nephites meant that the Lamanites immediately blamed the Nephites for anything untoward. That assumption is unsatisfying. Historical and archaeological studies confirm that conflict was a way of life in Mesoamerica and not all conflicts could possibly have been between Lamanite and Nephite. There were other inter-city hatreds that are not part of our Book of Mormon.
If we assume that there were other populations in the vicinity (all subsumed under the rubric of “Lamanites” in the Book of Mormon) we may legitimately ask why the Limhites were so immediately suspect. Certainly the answer lies in the conflict just resolved between the two peoples. The Lamanites had attacked Lehi-Nephi; and even though a tribute treaty had been imposed and accepted, it would not be completely out of the question that some resentful Nephites might retaliate by taking the Lamanite women, although what they hoped to gain by this action is not clear. Thus the accusation is logical against the Limhites, but not because they were absolutely the only choice. They were only the most logical choice, possessing both motive and opportunity.
The third important item in these two verses is the direct participation of the Lamanite king. He personally led the army bent on destroying Lehi-Nephi. In contrast, no king is mentioned in the army of conquest that had so recently conquered the Limhites and imposed the tribute treaty. Why would the king be so personally involved at this point?
There are likely compounding reasons for the king’s participation. One would be the necessity to forcefully suppress an attempted rebellion, lest other tributaries take heart from a successful uprising. Second, because the dancers were probably involved in a religious rite, their abduction partook of blasphemy, thus requiring retribution to cancel out the insult to their gods.
Significant, but probably less important than the military and religious motivations, would have been anger over the loss of the daughters. While modern societies would assume that anguish for a child would be a paramount emotion, this may not have been the case in the ancient world. Not only was life cheaper in many ways in the ancient world, but there is no indication that the king was personally related to any of the dancers. The absence of kinship would have reduced his level of personal concern. Additionally, given the secondary social status accorded women in ancient societies, the fact that this loss was of “only women” should have diminished the response, not heightened it. Therefore, chivalry may be discounted as a reason for the king’s personal involvement. Although assigning motivations can be only speculative, it seems most likely that the Lamanites marching against Limhi were retaliating for political and religious reasons, not simple parental love.