Floodlit reports say the first time PB molested the child was in 2014, when the child was an infant, then in 2019 in Spain, and then also in 2020-2023 back in Utah. The 2014 molestations was apparently one of the charges Phil was trying to cover up.
Just on the phrasing "cover up" - I agree that this is totally disgusting and has a horrid stench, but is this not a case of cleaning a juveniles record, rather than "cover up" - I know they are effective the same thing.
Can anyone versed in state law provide more context on cleaning a juvenile's criminal record?
Floodlit reports say the first time PB molested the child was in 2014, when the child was an infant, then in 2019 in Spain, and then also in 2020-2023 back in Utah. The 2014 molestations was apparently one of the charges Phil was trying to cover up.
Just on the phrasing "cover up" - I agree that this is totally disgusting and has a horrid stench, but is this not a case of cleaning a juveniles record, rather than "cover up" - I know they are effective the same thing.
Can anyone versed in state law provide more context on cleaning a juvenile's criminal record?
I see your point, but in reading through this case, it seems the juvenile record involved PB molesting the same child when they were an infant, in 2014. Then, knowing his son's record and after apparently getting that record expunged, he put his son in proximity with the same child, who was assaulted again by him in 2019 in Spain.
I understand expunging a record is different, but in my opinion, this MP set up a situation where the same molestation could happen again, in his home. So yes, I do think he "covered up" his son's behavior, and this 'cover up' resulted in opportunities for more assault.
Just on the phrasing "cover up" - I agree that this is totally disgusting and has a horrid stench, but is this not a case of cleaning a juveniles record, rather than "cover up" - I know they are effective the same thing.
Can anyone versed in state law provide more context on cleaning a juvenile's criminal record?
I see your point, but in reading through this case, it seems the juvenile record involved PB molesting the same child when they were an infant, in 2014. Then, knowing his son's record and after apparently getting that record expunged, he put his son in proximity with the same child, who was assaulted again by him in 2019 in Spain.
I understand expunging a record is different, but in my opinion, this MP set up a situation where the same molestation could happen again, in his home. So yes, I do think he "covered up" his son's behavior, and this 'cover up' resulted in opportunities for more assault.
I agree with you on this.
There is one issue which I find problematic with this. The person raising the lawsuit is the parent of the abused child, who is also the brother of the convicted abuser. Therefore the parent of the abused child must have known the risk of his brother - presumably in 2014 he knew his brother abused his child. This makes the mind boggle that he would allow his young child in close proximity with the abuser, even if his brother. I don't think this can be blamed on expunging records - all involved knew the risk of the abuser - surely? So I guess my question is: what is the angle of the parent of the abused child?
The parent of the abused child and the abuser are both sons of the Mission President.
Irrespective of state records of abusers, the church has an annotation system for records. I wonder if this was expunged too? There is definitely a case to answer for the church here, but I feel there is missing information to blame them for the abuse, when all people involved here knew the abuser.
I see your point, but in reading through this case, it seems the juvenile record involved PB molesting the same child when they were an infant, in 2014. Then, knowing his son's record and after apparently getting that record expunged, he put his son in proximity with the same child, who was assaulted again by him in 2019 in Spain.
I understand expunging a record is different, but in my opinion, this MP set up a situation where the same molestation could happen again, in his home. So yes, I do think he "covered up" his son's behavior, and this 'cover up' resulted in opportunities for more assault.
I agree with you on this.
There is one issue which I find problematic with this. The person raising the lawsuit is the parent of the abused child, who is also the brother of the convicted abuser. Therefore the parent of the abused child must have known the risk of his brother - presumably in 2014 he knew his brother abused his child...
That's the issue you find problematic?
Based on what I've read, I disagree that the brother knew as much as the father and the LDS church. I think that's why he brought the case when he did, but we will have to wait and see.
You've mentioned several LDS church "policies," please understand, given the record of the LDS church as it relates to hiding abuse and abusers, I don't believe any surface statements about how the LDS church has or had "policies" in place and their supposed effectiveness. The LDS church and its lawyers have zero credibility, in my opinion.
It seems the reason for getting the molester's record expunged was not related to the person himsrlf:
Philip Kevin Bussey
was a Mormon area authority seventy and mission president; accused in a 2025 lawsuit of concealing child sexual abuse perpetrated by another person in order to be able to become a mission president; accused of inviting a known child sexual abuser to travel to his mission home in Madrid, Spain, where the abuser molested a child
In 2025, a lawsuit against Bussey and the Mormon church said Bussey helped a convicted sex offender (Paydan Georgy Bussey) be removed from registries in Washington and Utah in order for Phil to be able to become a mission president.
Phil Bussey consulted with LDS church leaders about Paydan’s sexual misconduct and criminal case in Washington and got advice from them on “how to proceed,” according to the complaint.
In 2019, Phil Bussey invited Paydan to visit him while Phil was a mission president in Madrid, Spain.
While there, Paydan groomed and molested a small child, the lawsuit said.
The LDS church paid for Paydan’s travel to and from Spain, according to the lawsuit.
As of February 2025, Paydan was facing child sex abuse charges in ongoing cases in King County, Washington and in Utah.
Based on what I've read, I disagree that the brother knew as much as the father and the LDS church. I think that's why he brought the case when he did, but we will have to wait and see.
You've mentioned several LDS church "policies," please understand, given the record of the LDS church as it relates to hiding abuse and abusers, I don't believe any surface statements about how the LDS church has or had "policies" in place and their supposed effectiveness. The LDS church and its lawyers have zero credibility, in my opinion.
I understand your concerns about the LDS church's credibility regarding abuse cases. However, I was specifically questioning the narrative details of this particular case, not minimizing the severity of the abuse itself.
What I find puzzling is the father's role in this situation. Given that it was his own brother and he presumably knew about his brother's history, how did he not take precautions to protect his children? While the LDS church bears responsibility for their broader pattern of handling abuse cases, in this specific instance, I'm trying to understand the father's decision-making process.
The institutional failure to protect other potential victims who had no warning is indeed scandalous, but this particular case seems to have additional complexity regarding family dynamics and prior knowledge.
Based on what I've read, I disagree that the brother knew as much as the father and the LDS church. I think that's why he brought the case when he did, but we will have to wait and see.
You've mentioned several LDS church "policies," please understand, given the record of the LDS church as it relates to hiding abuse and abusers, I don't believe any surface statements about how the LDS church has or had "policies" in place and their supposed effectiveness. The LDS church and its lawyers have zero credibility, in my opinion.
I understand your concerns about the LDS church's credibility regarding abuse cases. However, I was specifically questioning the narrative details of this particular case, not minimizing the severity of the abuse itself.
What I find puzzling is the father's role in this situation. Given that it was his own brother and he presumably knew about his brother's history, how did he not take precautions to protect his children? While the LDS church bears responsibility for their broader pattern of handling abuse cases, in this specific instance, I'm trying to understand the father's decision-making process.
The institutional failure to protect other potential victims who had no warning is indeed scandalous, but this particular case seems to have additional complexity regarding family dynamics and prior knowledge.
Lots of innuendo there. I'd rather stick with what we know. The son is a convicted sexual offender, and his convictions demonstrate he has abused children and infants.
The assertion of the case is that the LDS church assisted in having him removed from sex offender registries in two states, specifically so his father could serve as MP. That action allowed him to have his son stay at the mission home in Spain, where he continued his pattern of molestation. I'm guessing staying on the registries might have prevented that, but I don't know for sure.
Focusing instead on how you think the victim's family could have done more to avoid molestation by the sex offender just sounds like victim-blaming. Discuss it if you want, but you'll need to support your speculation about the fault of others besides the offender.
What I find puzzling is the father's role in this situation. Given that it was his own brother and he presumably knew about his brother's history, how did he not take precautions to protect his children? While the LDS church bears responsibility for their broader pattern of handling abuse cases, in this specific instance, I'm trying to understand the father's decision-making process.
The institutional failure to protect other potential victims who had no warning is indeed scandalous, but this particular case seems to have additional complexity regarding family dynamics and prior knowledge.
It's entirely possible that the original offence occurred without the knowledge of the victims parents, and that they only found out about it as a consequence of the later offending. The incident could have happened while the grandparents were babysitting and whilst the offender was still living at home.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The assertion of the case is that the LDS church assisted in having him removed from sex offender registries in two states, specifically so his father could serve as MP. That action allowed him to have his son stay at the mission home in Spain, where he continued his pattern of molestation. I'm guessing staying on the registries might have prevented that, but I don't know for sure.
The calling of a Mission President is a process. It involves several meetings with an Apostle, both individually and as a couple. Disclosures have to be made, assurances given etc. The fact that Phil had a son who was a registered sex offender most definitely came up, hence why Phil received advice from the Church (I assume Kirton McKonkie) on how to cleanse the son's sex offender record. The Apostle knew. Phil knew.
Then, armed with all that knowledge, Phil flies the his entire family to Madrid for Christmas, at the Church's expense, and wilfully puts the victim and their abuser together. He enabled further abuse of the victim. The Church facilitated it. Paid for it.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
So PB was born in 1999. This would make him 20 years old when he first assaulted the child in Spain. The perpetrator continued the conduct in Utah, which makes me think this child was a dependent who was with the mission president during his mission tenure and was still a dependent when the mission president went to Utah. Therefore, judging by PB's age, I'm thinking this is the son of the mission president and this son assaulted his own sibling.
Brandon is the one suing his parents and the Church etc, Paydan is the offender. The victim is likely one of Brandon's children.
In that case, it's pretty clear that I was wrong and the victim was the mission president's grandchild.
