The leaders definitely would be.

what would distinguish the one from the other

One being genuinely misled.

but let us say they know of the existence of the hadeeth also, and also believe that it is a genuine document - in fact, they publicly affirm that very fact twice a year in a big meeting.

But don't follow it?

yes

and kick out anyone who does, and call them apostates

and become suspicious of anyone who so much admits to owning any hadeeth compilations

Not following some hadeeth would make you an apostate, not following some hadeeth would just make you a sinner, not following some hadeeth isn't ideal but you wouldn't have sinned not following it.

But rejecting it wholesale, while thinking it should be followed, would be apostasy.

They would be apostates in your scenario.

from where I am sitting, they would be horrible followers of the prophet if they believed they had a huge body of work directly from the people who followed the prophet in person, yet did not diligently read it and try to abide by it

They wouldn't be followers at all, if they're not actually following him.

that's right

They'd just be placating their communities

And be worse than non believers perhaps

that does seem reasonable, doesn't it?

Perfectly.

so the whole hypothetical was not about your religion, but mine

I am having some trouble and not quite sure what to do

Christianity is just social glue for a lot of people now.

I am not a christian, I am a mormon

What happened?

we believe in two specific prophets, who gave us a specific book we take as holy scripture. Mainstream mormons listen very intently to this book and to the modern leaders of the church. However, approximately 9,500 pages of modern and carefully documented sermons by the early leaders of our religion exist, however nobody follows them, nobody talks about them, but everyone knows they exist. They are a big giant taboo. I am starting to be called an apostate for directly reading the compiled words of our own prophets.

Why do they discount the sermons?

they don't know. If you ask them they can't tell you. However, they sneeringly refer to them as "non canonical, apocrypha"

"early leaders" are they prophets?

we believe so, yes, as prerequisite to believing in our religion

Why do they refer to them as apocrypha?

because they are not canonized by our leaders today.

Are current leaders prophets as well?

allegedly

If it's a sure thing that earlier leaders were prophets, then it's a sure thing that current leaders aren't.

As contradiction couldn't exist.

that does seem clear, doesn't it?

Unless earlier teachings were explicitly timed.

no, they were not timed, they explicitly stated they were never to be overturned.

You are not a mormon

They used language such as "the eternal law of heaven, which cannot be withdrawn," and "thus it always was and ever shall be"

Yes, then.

It's clear as day.