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.
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.