According to them yes. Better gods reasons (I do not believe in god fyi) than some annoying womans.
The LDS Church is not actually a theocracy, in theory. It has always embraced a principle called "common consent". God can speak, God can jump up and down and shout whatever He wants, but the members get to choose whether they will accept. . . . .
Even in the Bible, the Ten Commandments were presented as from God, but there was a process of establishing the peoples' covenant of acceptance. The Israelites chose to accept the Ten Commandments and the Law in general, as a covenant.
I should resist philosophical meanderings, but I rarely do. . . . it's not going to make the news if say a ward voted against sustaining a new bishop. There will be questions asked. . . . the ward members may offer some reasons. . . but I bet they get another bishop pretty quick.
That is part of the reason, I believe, the "leaders" try to put a lot of stress on the concept of following the Leader. Because it could just get really, like really, dicey to make any changes in the organization at all. You're "supposed" to raise your hand to sustain whatever they say or do. . . .
I know of one branch that went on strike over a leadership change. That event was essentially my fault because I could have said something about it and prevented it from happening. Those members had more guts than I did, and they did get a new leader. It didn't make the News, not even the Church News.
In the LDS Church, women have long had some areas of special calling or responsibility. From the beginning there was a women's organization called Relief Society. Women in Mormonism have always spoken in Church meetings. Joseph Smith's wife Emma did not fit the victim profile at all, and on occasions she gave Joseph clearly stated instructions and demands. The "Word of Wisdom" came after she was so disgusted about cleaning up after the "priesthood" meeting, finding tobacco chaws spit all over, the place reeking in cigarette smoke and such. . . .
Properly understood, the "Priesthood" in the Mormon concept is supposed to be a "servant" position, not a dictatorial one.
I wonder sometimes about the problems following from a principle of "universal priesthood" being a males-only thing. I hazard questions about how even the societal expectation of all boys being ordained in the Aaronic Priesthood really corresponds to the Biblical record.
I think it is wrong to systematically move young men through the qourums according to age limits regardless of actually relevant factors like attitude or willingness to "serve", and how it transforms the "priesthood" into a "status essential" of some kind.
But I have to come down at least on the notion that if there is a God, and "priesthood" is something defined by that God, or given by that God, that comes from that God, I am sure He is the one who actually controls the issues.
A Church may offer "Priesthood" as a symbol of some kind within it's organization, but only God can make it His. If you believe Churches must conform to some larger societal notion of organization and structure, you don't actually believe in freedom of religion or conscience.
LDS women who want the "priesthood" seem to me somewhat comparable to the city slicker cousins who covet the old family farm. The country cousins generally would be glad to trade places. They know it's a lot of work, and not really much glory.
