Amulek creates a literary contrast that hinges upon the concept of law. He suggests that while they are accusing him of speaking against their law, Amulek suggests that he has spoken with their law against them. It is a nice turn of the phrase, a very nice verbal argument. Is it true? What has Amulek said against their law, or “with” their law?
Amulek spoke against their law when he spoke against the lawyers. Those men were charged with the preservation of that law and should be considered as quintessential representatives of that law. Thus when he spoke against the lawyers, Amulek had spoken against the law.
Where did he speak “with” the law against them? Amulek referred to Mosiah the king and his declaration. This is where he used “law” to condemn them. Even though Mosiah’s comment does not appear to a modern audience to be a “law,” it certainly was in the ancient conception of the law. Thus Amulek spoke against the law when he spoke against the lawyers, and he used their law against them with his reference to Mosiah. For Amulek, however, he did not speak against Mosiah’s law, which should govern all cities pertaining to the Zarahemla hegemony. He considers the law of Ammonihah different from that of Mosiah, and that of Mosiah as of higher import.