According to John Welch and Stephen Ricks, in typical ancient Near Eastern covenant-making fashion, and in accordance with Deuteronomy 11:26-28 and 27:14-26, Benjamin ends his covenant ceremony by pronouncing a blessing and a curse. Here, Benjamin compares the fate of the disobedient person with that of an ass that tries to live and eat where he does not belong:
And again, doth a man take an ass which belongeth to his neighbor, and keep him? I say unto you, Nay; he will not even suffer that he shall feed among his flocks, but will drive him away, and cast him out. I say unto you, that even so shall it be among you if ye know not the name by which ye are called. (Mosiah 5:14)
To what extent can Benjamin's reference to the ass in this ritual context be connected with any other ancient ceremonial practices? If Benjamin had spoken of a goat instead of an ass, a connection with the Israelite Day of Atonement ritual would have been obvious (Leviticus 16:10). Benjamin does not, however, speak of a goat. Nor does he say that the ass, which shall be driven away and cast out, shall bear the sins of the people. Undoubtedly he does not make use of the traditional scapegoat for the simple reason that using an animal to carry away the sins of the people would be inconsistent with the understanding now revealed through Benjamin that only the blood of Christ (Mosiah 3:18-19, 21) atones for sin.
The scapegoat ritual, although probably remaining symbolically meaningful to Benjamin, had been superseded. Thus it is suggested that Benjamin intentionally avoided any reference to a goat in this context but spoke instead of an ass, as several reasons may elucidate:
1. Benjamin may have felt a need to refer to some kind of animal in the place of the scapegoat, and the ass proved more suitable than other candidates, such as sheep, which were symbols of obedient followers, and even of the Lord himself (1 Nephi 10:10)
2. The fabled stubbornness of the ass could have been, in Benjamin's mind, a good characterization of the rebelliousness of sinners, those that "remaineth and dieth an enemy to God" (Mosiah 2:38). Other traditions however, could have led Benjamin to consider the ass to be adequately endowed with strong innate virtues, enabling the ass to please his master, but at the same time to be characteristically foolish, foreign, and stubborn.
3. The ass appears to have had significance among the Israelite descendants of Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and perhaps it therefore had particular meaning to the posterity of Lehi who was from that lineage. The Hebrew word l'hi means "jawbone" or "cheekbone," words which have many direct associations with asses.
4. That the ass was used in covenant rituals in the ancient Near East generally is addressed in Hiller's book, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, 1969, 40-41.
5. The ass was uniquely "redeemable"; see Exodus 13:13 and 34:20.
If any of these ideas has merit, Benjamin might have drawn upon these traditions in creating a powerful analogy here, leading to this interpretation: if Joseph is associated with the ass, then his descendants would constitute the "flock" to which Benjamin refers. Thus the sinner is likened to a foreign or wild ass, who is not permitted to eat with the asses of the master. The idea that the "flock" here is a flock of asses is consistent with the verse which immediately precedes Benjamin's expulsion simile (Mosiah 5:13). This implies that the "flock" is not a flock of passive animals, but must be a group of animals capable of rendering useful service to the master. A group of asses would symbolize such a group of servants bearing the burdens of the master. The concept of feeding another man's animals when they stray into your land is part of the law. [John W. Welch and Stephen D. Ricks, "Appendix--Complete Text of Benjamin's Speech with Notes and Comment" in King Benjamin's Speech: "That Ye May Learn Wisdom," pp. 607-608]