Not in the way I see mormons apply the principle. Concepts like that God was not always God, and may potentially have scores of wives with whom he has marital relations to make spirit babies, fundamentally, radically affects the way a non-Mormon (or recently converted Mormon) views God. In this case milk serves to obfuscate the real doctrine.
So you see, in Paul's useage of the phrase, the fundamentals of the gospel are the milk, deeper theological applications the meat. Mormons refer to 'God' and Jesus and 'heavenly father' in contemporary Christian fashion - yet the mormon definitions is not revealed until later AFTER they have made the initial committment.
See, Paul's 'milk' was not obfuscatory to the later 'meat', why then is 'milk' obfuscatory to the meat? Why won't mormon missionaries tell inquirers that God resides on a planet call Kolob? That is not a hard spiritual concept to grasp. Why won't they tell the inquirer that heavenly father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are completely separate gods among a countless host of other gods. Polytheism is a simple concept to grasp.
In you teaching of thermodynamics or when I taught undergrads geology, there are fundamental principles involved. However, these principles are not contrary to the later principles that are taught on the subject. Mormon claim that salvation is by 'grace', it is only later that the new mormon discovers that this 'grace' and 'salvation' - contrary to their normal and Christian definions and use - mean something entirely different.
And that is how Mormons use the expression. To assert otherwise is just special pleading on your part.
Your complaint seems to be that we do not interpret Mormonism the way you think it ought to be interpreted, or teach it the way you think it ought to be taught.