I will admit that my arguments in favour of Latter-day Saint theology and/or in defence thereof are not the “typical” approaches and answers one finds among many other Latter-day Saints, such as how I jettison the use of biblical proof-texts to support the LDS understanding of pre-existence and instead argue from Christology. The whole “well, I never came across a Mormon who argued that before” approach, while common, it nothing less than a disingenuous intellectual dodge—instead of dealing with the issues just try to avoid them by hand-waving (this is something James White and Jeff Durbin engaged in while attempting to respond to my popular article Refuting Jeff Durbin on “Mormonism”)
Further, it is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” approach to things. If a Latter-day Saint argues using a purportedly novel approach to an issue and tries to add to the intellectual debate, well, that is to be dismissed as it is “new” and not the “typical Mormon” approach; if they utilise a formulation of the “standard” response to a topic, that is to be dismissed as it is “a typical Mormon response to ‘x’.” Again, it is disingenuous and a dodge by critics who argue thusly.
It is not just limited to critiques of Latter-day Saint apologists; I have seen James White pull this stunt against Robert Sungenis on many occasions (e.g., on how Sungenis approaches the Marian Dogmas and the manner in which he appeals to the intercessory work of Christ to defend the Mass to support it being a propitiatory sacrifice).