1) While I recognize that the National charter is important, that National is what allows the lodge to function and recognizes the official name, that is not what is important in our Order. It is the youth leadership, the local fellowships, the Ordeals at camps, and the cheerful service provided at home that is what makes the lodge what it is. As such, I see a significant interest in looking towards local custom. If the Charter has one name, but the lodge always called itself something different (for example, “Talidandiganu” has NEVER been used outside of the Charter – I think that is a typo), we should give great deference to the term used by the brothers in that lodge.

2) There is enough confusion as it is with Lodge names. When the lodge name changed on the charter, is that the disbanding of one lodge and the new charter of a new lodge? Were there minutes from a meeting creating the change? Or does the Charter simply reflect the name as it was printed by the Lodge Advisor or Scout Executive (or his secretary) at the time on the recharter form? There is only one Talidandaganu’, and always has been. (Yes, there was a Chicakamauga Lodge previously that held, to the best of my knowledge, one ceremony – that is different.)

3) In the interest of those who collect patches, Talidandaganu’ is different from many other lodges whose names have changed over the years. None of the official memorabilia has misspelled the lodge name (with the exception of omitting the terminal apostrophe from time to time – which I think was just an oversight). We’ve misspelled our camp name, we’ve misspelled the name of brothers in whose memory we dedicate an Ordeal, we’ve misidentified Conclave themes and other lodges’ numbers on section items, we’ve misidentified the real “anniversary” on some anniversary pieces – but we’ve always spelled the lodge name the same way since it’s inception 51 years ago. We don’t need a Lodge 293a, 293b, 293c, 293d, and 293e.

4) What is gained by recognizing these names which are reflected on the Charter? Some would say that it is in the interest of reflecting the “whole picture” and accurately reporting history. Instead, I submit that it is more appropriate to include this neat information in a footnote of the history maintained by the lodge.

In sum, I disagree, and strongly discourage, the addition of new names for the lodge on oaimages.com or any future Blue Book. Other lodges that had a more significant historical change (e.g., there are some lodges who realized their lodge name was “spelled wrong” years after they had been using it) might have a different interest. The benefits of adding the names to the list are substantially outweighed by the burdens of doing so.

Of course, I can’t speak for Quil-Shan – that might be a completely different story!

Fantastic information!

Do you plan to post the Quil-Shan, Tali-Danda-Ganu, Talidandiganu and Talidandaganu names to the OA Images list of lodges?

Frank

Thanks for posting. Just to clarify: I don’t have the charters. Mr. Stulce does.

And for a shameless plug: anybody with historical documents from Chattanooga, please contact me.

John