Posted on 07/21/2009 7:41:51 AM PDT by frankenMonkey
Washington » Mormon Church leaders presented President Barack Obama with a detailed family tree in five leather-bound volumes Monday during a private meeting in the Oval Office.
The 30-minute sit-down was the first time Obama has met with Thomas S. Monson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Monson was escorted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the highest ranking Mormon in the government, and LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks, the chairman of the faith's genealogical committee.
LDS leaders have made a tradition of presenting presidents with genealogical breakdowns, giving similar reports to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but none have been as varied as Obama's, whose mother was from Kansas and whose father was from Kenya. Previous ancestral examinations have uncovered Obama's Irish and German lineage as well. "President Obama's heritage is rich with examples of leadership, sacrifice and service," Monson said. "We were very pleased to research his family history and are honored to present it to him today."
The bound volumes include details about multiple generations of his family going back hundreds of years.
In a brief statement, Obama said he enjoyed meeting the Mormon leaders and appreciated their gift.
"I'm grateful for the genealogical records that they brought with them and am looking forward to reading through the materials with my daughters," he said. "It's something our family will treasure for years to come."
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
First the good news...the Obama family line has all been rebaptized in the faith of Mitt Romney, so no more anti-Mormon smears in the next election
Must of been like Old Tymes for the Mormon Genealogists. What with all them multiple Mudlims wives in the family shrub..
I am most pleased to note that although one branch of my family has been in the U.S.A. since 1640 (MA, Martha’s Vineyard), NONE of the names I am familiar with from my family tree are mentioned on THAT family tree.
I am blessed.
I wonder if they included those nude photos of his mom?
If the very first line is false, then what can you say about the rest?
Maybe, but the point is we can't 100% be positive Stanley was Obama's mother or that Obama Sr. was his father, without a primary source document.
I am a genealogist myself and you need to first verify through a primary source (birth certificate, baptism record, etc. etc.) an individuals direct parentage and place of birth before proceeding any further with a 'lineage'. If that can't be done there is no authoritative tree.
What Obama posted is not a credible primary source document as it is a computer image not a paper document that can be examined for authenticity. Add to that the very likely reality that it is a forgery makes it even less authoritative.
In my opinion the Mormons should know this. So they really, really, REALLY screwed up on this one. Now all their credibility on matters of genealogy just went out the window.
Mine have been here since 1623...
Those are all Anglo names...
None of mine...
And allof Obama’s were born in the States for generations..
None born in England..
The reasons are simple:
The close blood relationships between early settlers tend to fall apart after about 1680 because at that time the British rulers begin to greatly increase the pool of colonists through forced emigration for various reasons ranging from petty criminals to people hopelessly in debt and those simply deemed undesirable to remain behind.
Bottom line is that even if you don't share common ancestors with Obama through direct blood lineage, you most likely are still a distant cousin through marital relationships of your indirect lines.
Yes and no. The DAR, Indian Tribes or most any genealogical based organization will require a primary source document if one is available. Certainly, in Obama's case, one would be available if he was born in Hawaii as he claimed.
However, remember that before the late 19th century, states in America did not even issue birth certificates. These records were kept by local churches in parish registers or even entered into privately kept family records such as a Bible, especially on the frontier when parish repositories were not available.
This is why the DAR, as just one example, will require the certified birth certificates for only three generations and accept as primary source documents other records such as census entries, parish records and even family records after three generations.
If Obama really was born in Kenya, it is entirely possible that he doesn't even possess a government-issued birth certificate, particularly if Kenya didn't require such records.
The Mayflower Society requires more birth certificates that there are former presidents of the US to join!
___________________________________________
So does the Huguenot Society and the Dutch Settlers Society..
And this one here is where your family turned black...
Ummm, yes and yes. Primary source documents are required in every case, there is not a situation of 'if one is available'. If 'one isn't available' you don't have documentation - simple as that. And you keep searching for that all important documentation for PROOF.
I happen to be a MEMBER of the DAR so I know what I'm talking about! And I can verify for you that when it comes to the 1ST GENERATION, (the entry level applicant for the D.A.R. is referred to as 1st generation) applicants are REQUIRED to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate. They are also REQUIRED to produce a certified copy of their parents and their grandparents birth certificates AND death certificates if these generations have passed. For generations preceding 1910 other records will suffice but they MUST STILL BE PRIMARY source documents! If they can't find one, they are not accepted - PERIOD - until they do find one.
The 2nd and 3rd generations are not the applicant, but they are in the genealogical LINE of the applicant. In this instance of the LDS presenting a family history for Obama, Obama is the 1st generation, not 2nd or 3rd. Therefore his certified birth certificate is REQUIRED to produce a credible genealogy. FYI: Birth certificates have been issued since 1910 in every state....the only exceptions would be someone born PRIOR to 1910 which is why the DAR has the stipulation FIRST THREE generations. No new applicant for the DAR today is going to have been born prior to 1910, they would be 99 years old.
That you know this is clear because you wrote: This is why the DAR, as just one example, will require the certified birth certificates for only three generations and accept as primary source documents..." Exactly, PRIMARY source documents, not secondary!!! But its those FIRST, 3 Generations where Obama fits. HE is the 1st generation for the production of a family lineage and therefore HE is required to have a certified birth certificate. HE is even required to produce certified birth certificates for his parents and his grandparents to have a credible genealogical line!
In pre-1910 situations bible records, parish records, baptism records, probate records, etc. may be used - you are correct. But these records ARE considered PRIMARY source documents! That's where you are wrong. It is absolutely laughable that supposed experts in genealogy like the LDS would accept Obama's word alone on his family history! How absurd! Heresay, family legend, and 'you just have to accept my word on it' doesn't even qualify as a secondary source! An example of a secondary source document would be a published family history, but is always at least based on a primary source that can be cited and then another researcher can verify the source. When you have hearsay which cannot be verified, you don't even have a secondary source let alone primary. More information here on what is and is not a primary source document.
Make sure you have the facts next time. And again I repeat: The Mormon genealogists would know this! They screwed up big time and have now revealed themselves to be non-authoritative and non-trustworthy in matters of genealogy.
......but authoritative in the art of pandering.....
Brigham Young and Mark E. Peterson are rolling over in their graves.
"The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites [Native Americans] and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there....
"Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' Only here we have the reverse of the thing -- what God hath separated, let not man bring together again."
-- LDS (Mormon) Apostle Mark E. Petersen: Race Problems - As They Affect The Church, speaking at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.