I mean.....no, historians do not have any evidence of this and therefore it is not in the historiography. I'm sorry to negate another person's religion, but the way that I have studied the past does not show prior contact, although I admit that I am not familiar with specific arguments or examples from LDS members.

Now, that's not to say that there were not questions about this at the time about whether indigenous people might already have had contact with Christianity. Rumors persisted throughout the colonial period that indigenous people may have met St. Thomas, who taught the gospel to them. Some religious figures in indigenous traditions were interpreted to be a misremembering of interactions with the disciple. And for polytheistic faiths, one can also imagine how when when friars explained catholic saints and how they were patrons of certain things, how Indigenous people might have been like...so Mary is the mother god, a female divine figure, whom we can pray to and maybe be healed? Got it, she's like Ixchel, the Maya god of healing and the moon and fertility. Oh, and we should have celebrations and rituals and feasts for her? Yea, that makes sense, we do that for Ixchel too. And we should wrap this statue of her in fine cloth covered in symbols of sacredness and burn incense to her so that she might speak to us and heal us and help us with our struggles?...sure, we do a very similar thing.

This is the route to dig deeper into your question about how it was that it might be possible to see supposed similarities. Someone might then misinterpret connections as evidence of prior contact, when really it is evidence of the long and complicated process of conversion/translation of Christian ideas. Over the centuries, there were all these layers in meaning and understanding that ended up being mixed together in the long process of conversion. In Mesoamerica, because there are texts written in indigenous languages, we can actually see how friars made translations of Christian concepts. Their translations do not indicate that the Nahuas, Mayas, Zapotecs, or Mixtecs had prior experience with Christianity. If there were such preexisiting understandings, then it would not have been such a colossal pain to translate Christian concepts. Indigenous peoples didn't have any concept of what "sin" is or what "heaven" or "hell" are. Or how a god could be three but also one at one time. So instead, they tried to translate these terms into things that indigenous people did understand. Like sin, they translated to be a concept like...to become polluted, dirty, or filthy. They translated heaven into like...a watery place which was similar to conceptions of indigenous concepts of an afterlife. Indigenous people participated in this process, going the other direction. For instance, in Central Mexico, they decorated crosses with flowers, which had meaning for them as a sacred flourishing, rebirth and sweet smelling thing that overcame death. That is a really complicated translation, right? From the Christian idea of resurrection to the Aztec symbol of a flower, but it works. But you can also see how much layering of beliefs, knowledge, history, and cultural knowledge got bundled together.

Translations of prayers and confessions, and visual and artistic material, took on all sorts of local meanings that bent Christianity to specific preexisting indigenous beliefs, practices, and meanings at the same time that it transformed indigenous beliefs and cultures and made them Christian. It was not that they just met in the middle somewhere to become a syncretic, or mixed religion. Rather it was fully Christian at the same time that it had to be fully indigenous. Individuals saw and understood the same thing in different ways. Their religious beliefs became a many meaning/unique meaning kaleidoscope. It was a process that took hundreds of years, and really, is still ongoing.

There's a huge literature on this, but I'd check out Burkhart's Slippery Earth or Christensen's Nahua and Maya Catholicisms as places to start. You might also check out William F. Hanks, Amara Solari, and Nancy Farriss who have relatively recent books about these interconnections.

Wonderful answer. Thank you!