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....
-- 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
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.
_______________________________________________
Well, just another example, anyway...
This means Obama cant join the DAR, or the SAR, the UEL yes there were black Loyalists) the Huguenots (I was watching out for French names as I read) the Holland Society or the Dutch Settlers Society (No Dutch names either) and what about the Civil War, either side ???
Someone in all those American ancestors must have done something way back but Obama misses out...
Genealogy can be fun but first ya gotta prove you are a real person with sources/proofs, before ya start on the family connections
BTW I’m working on putting that there UE after my name...
:)
If it is over the definition of primary source documents, you've posted a link and stated the fact that what are considered secondary documents now can be considered primary source documents pre-1910. That's certainly a reasonable argument, but my statement in discussing the two was confined to the modern definition.
If the quarrel you are soliciting is over dating, I will also concede that what are now considered primary source documents such as birth certificates were not available in all states until about 1910. But they were available in some states and territories by the late 19th century. I know this because my grandfather's territorial birth certificate is of that vintage.
Finally, if you are soliciting a quarrel because you feel the Mormon Church's genealogical database is 100% tainted because they are continuing a long tradition of presenting U.S. Presidents with their genealogies and Obama has yet to present a primary source document, then you must necessarily argue: