I am not anti-Christian. But I hold Joseph Smith to be a liar. He wanted to create a new Old Testament
in place of the new covenant given to us in the Gospels.
Should any group from the Old World, Bronze or Iron Age, have made it to the New World then their
technologies would have SPREAD. Imagine the native Americans, especially the Aztecs, learning of
iron smelting then the Aztecs would have had a far superior weapon to the wood sticks with obsidian
blades glued to them.
Arrowheads are generally tied with sinew to wooden arrow shafts. However, in Alaska, native Americans used shells embedded in wood as the projectiles. Arrowheads generally have ears at the back end, to attach the sinew. The ears and edges of the arrowheads are made by wrapping hide over the arrowhead and pressing with a rock or antler until a tiny chip comes off. So, in general, ancient Native Americans didn't glue arrowheads to arrow shafts.
It could be that the New Testament bible was written by psychics. After all, unless they passed statements by all of the apostles verbally (or in writing), they had no way of knowing that info in creating the bible nearly a hundred years after Jesus died when the bible was written.
Obviously, Revelation was written by a psychic.
Why is it so hard to believe that God gave the holy scripture to other lands? Why just make a bible in a tiny strip of land in the Middle East?
It doesn't seem so far fetched that God would give modern instructions (a modern bible) to a modern people (just as Christians and Muslims got their new version of the old testament).
Mormons, today, think of the name "mormon" as an insult, and prefer to be called Latter Day Saints.
Latter Day Saints believe (as you pointed out) that Europeans came to America. That doesn't seem so strange at all. The Solutrean Hypothesis shows that when a Clovis site was excavated, Clovis artifacts were found. But, digging deeper, a much older and different civilization (called pre-Clovis) was also found in lower strata.
There, pre-Clovis arrowheads were found. They were made by flaking. They were fluted (presumably to let blood leak through, to kill the animal that they hit), and an expert on fluted arrowheads of Europe claim that in 18 different ways, the arrowheads match the technology of the Solutrean civilization of Europe.
Modern Native Americans largely rail against the notion that a European beat them to America, and they call archaeologists bigots who only support White people. But, the authors of the Solutrean Hypothesis point out that the Solutrean Civilization, though in central Europe, was Black (African), not White.
At first, it was thought that the age of the Solutrean Civilization had precluded it being the same as the pre-Clovis Indians. Yet, upon further dating of Solutrean and pre-Clovis artifacts, they overlap in time. And, the Solutrean Civilization disappeared, having been driven out about the same time that the pre-Clovis civilization appeared in America.
But shouldn't there be DNA evidence?
Apparently there is an X-factor in the DNA that appears in North American Native Americans. But it is most prominent in the area around the pre-Clovis site in Virginia, and tapers off dramatically in surrounding Native American populations surrounding it. So, DNA evidence appears to be there. But, modern DNA experts claim that it could have come from the Bering straits (where Siberia, Russia almost touches Alaska, where once the Beringian land bridge (or ice bridge) existed). But, why the strange distribution of the DNA.
Opponents of the Solutrean Hypothesis argue that the DNA of a Clovis child matches modern Native Americans. They assert that the DNA of Clovis is the same as the DNA of pre-Clovis (they are, of course, wrong). Apparently, Clovis Indians are current Indians. Pre-Clovis, on the other hand, might have been from Europe.
The acidic soil of Virginia dissolved the bones and DNA of the pre-Clovis Native Americans, so there is no way of extracting DNA for a test.