Rhetorical: In the Mesoamerican context this statement also takes on a tremendously powerful added meaning. When Amulek asks if the blood of one man can atone for another, he does it in a very interesting way. Note that he asks if “any man…can sacrifice his own blood…” Why personalize it like that? Amulek makes the statement in precisely this way because it was the autosacrifice of the blood of kings that was the religious mortal of Mesoamerican life. The autosacrifice of blood was the most holy of rites in Mesoamerica, and would have been abundantly familiar to all in this area. Amulek is specifically contrasting the sacrifice of the Savior against the type of blood sacrifice with which they are familiar. Amulek is preaching Christ by contrast against the more familiar concepts of blood sacrifice.
Amulek’s argument that autosacrifice of blood is ineffective atonement takes an interesting turn. He gives an example as to why it is ineffective. Amulek appeals to law, and notes that a murderer cannot be redeemed by taking the life of his (innocent) brother. Clearly Amulek expects that this argument will be understood. He is noting that the blood of the brother does not atone, or absolve the sin of the murderer. This is his argument against the autosacrifice of the kings. Amulek is preaching Christ by showing how their current understandings are incorrect.