Because this is a voluntary covenant, there might be some who would choose to deny it. Benjamin clearly declares this a black/white choice. There is not blending of choices, there is no gray, there is no middle ground. Since the only name through which salvation comes is Christ, if one will not be called by that name, there is no other which may save him. Thus one is called for Christ and may sit on the right hand of God, or is called by some other name – a name which has no power to save, and therefore will be on the left hand of God.
Vocabulary: The left and right hand symbolism is ancient and widespread. With the statistical predominance of right handed people, the right hand become associated with truth, good – with “right”! The left hand is symbolically the opposite, with our word sinister coming from the Latin for the left hand. Thus sitting on the right hand of God is very good, while being on the left hand of God is equivalent to being excluded from his presence entirely – the opposite of the condition on the “right” hand.
Literary: Verses 10-12 are a very nice chiasm, as highlighted by John Welch:
"aAnd now it shall come to pass that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ
b must be called by some other name
ctherefore he findeth himself on the left hand of God
dand I would that ye should remember also that this is the name that I said I should give unto you
ethat never should be blotted out
f except it be through transgression
ftherefore take head that ye do not transgress
ethat the name be not blotted out of your hearts
dI say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts
cthat ye are not found on the left hand of God
bbut that he hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called
aand also the name by which he shall call you"
(Welch, John W. “Parallelism and Chiasmus in Benjamin’s Speech.” In: King Benjamin’s Speech. FARMS 1998, p. 370).
This particular chiasm clearly exhibits a reversal of elements. Nevertheless, it does not readily exhibit all of the characteristics attributed to classical chiasmus. Again from Welch:
“Chiasmus is the literary technique of creating double structures in which the second half of a composition mirrors and balances the first half, but in reverse order. In general, the device is useful for several literary purposes, especially for concentrating attention on the main point of the passage by placing it at the central turning point rather than in a topic sentence at the beginning of a paragraph, as is the trend with modern writers” (Welch, John W. “Parallelism and Chiasmus in Benjamin’s Speech.” In: King Benjamin’s Speech. FARMS 1998, p. 320).
In this particular reversed parallelism, the central point is transgression where the clear intent of the passage is to focus on the power of the name. In this case, Benjamin is threading a logic stream and reverses the order so that, in this particular case, the emphasis rests on the first and last element rather than the center elements. This does not deny the chiastic structure, but simply highlights the difficulty in presuming that all chiastic structures are to be interpreted in precisely the same way.
Welch‘s article uses the principle of chiasm to analyze the entire structure of Benjamin’s discourse. The nature of the reversed structure indicates that there is an organizational framework that is previously organized prior to the oral discourse. Chiasms may function as a device to order an oral discourse, but they show forethought, not spontaneity. In the case of Benjamin’s discourse, the presumption of overarching chiastic structures requires that the entire discourse have been outlined prior to presentation.
As noted in this commentary, I see more indications of points entirely dependent upon audience reaction, and therefore I would argue that there was no foregone conclusion as to a chiastic structure. Secondly, in the chiastic arrangement determined by Welch there are conceptual structures that he has associated chiastically that are at odds with the contextual interpretation in this commentary. For instance, the “what is man” category covers elements that might read into that category for a modern man, but are at odds with the proposed contextual reading (particularly Mosiah 2:10-11 that Welch uses as part of the “what is man” theme, and I would suggest is part of a set of contrasts to external rulers - see Welch, John W. “Parallelism and Chiasmus in Benjamin’s Speech.” In: King Benjamin’s Speech. FARMS 1998, p. 330).
Chiasms definitely exist as literary structures in the Book of Mormon, but just as authentic ones exist, others may be artificially created. Those that cast the widest net by dealing with conceptual categories are the most difficult to sustain, and the very extraction of theme is subject to more modern than ancient interpretation. The reader must judge such cases on the evidence, and is referred to Welch‘s article for his views on the chiastic elements in Benjamin’s speech.