No, they are not required to let the animals die.
Yes, they may continue to keep animals for livelihood and may sell them, provided:
They do not eat flesh foods, and
They do not engage in cruelty, greed, or conscience violation, and
They are progressing in harmony with God’s reform, not resisting it.
Health reform is progressive, educational, and redemptive—not destructive or fanatical.
“And God said… have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing…”
(Genesis 1:28)
Dominion means wise stewardship, not reckless destruction. Letting animals die would be poor stewardship, not righteousness.
“The labourer is worthy of his hire.”
(Luke 10:7)
God does not require people to suddenly destroy their means of living when receiving advancing truth.
“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb… to you it shall be for meat.”
(Genesis 1:29)
The dietary ideal is plant-based, but Scripture itself shows that God has worked with humanity progressively, not abruptly (cf. Genesis 9:3).
“Health reform is to be taught gradually… It is not to be urged suddenly upon people.”
(Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 206)
Requiring believers to immediately dispose of livestock—especially when it is their livelihood—would be unsound and fanatical.
“We do not mark out any precise line to be followed in diet.” (CD 198)
God does not authorize us to impose rigid tests beyond what conscience and light can presently bear.
Ellen White strongly counsels against eating flesh, but she does not forbid selling animals as a livelihood during the transition period.
She herself acknowledged:
“It is not wise to specify exactly what foods should or should not be eaten.” (Letter 45, 1903)
“The time will come when it will not be safe to use milk and eggs…” (CD 357)
Notice:
“The time will come” → future
Not an immediate universal test
Brother Houteff never taught that believers should:
Kill their animals
Destroy their livelihood
Create economic hardship to prove faith
Instead, he emphasized education and reform.
As you correctly noted, Bro. Houteff discusses:
Milk and eggs from one’s own animals, where conditions are cleaner and safer
This implies:
Keeping animals is not condemned
The concern is health, cruelty, and indulgence, not ownership itself
In SRod teaching, abomination includes:
Sinful practices
Rebellion against advancing light
Worldliness and oppression
Meat eating is addressed as part of health reform, but not elevated above justice, mercy, and obedience.
“God does not call His people to extremes, but to reason, order, and obedience.”
(SRod principle, summarized)
Answer:
❌ No. Keeping animals for livelihood is not forbidden.
Answer:
❌ Absolutely not. That would be wasteful, cruel, and fanatical.
Answer:
✅ Yes. Selling animals is not the same as eating flesh and does not violate health reform principles.
✅ Teach:
Gradual reform
Plant-based diet as the goal
Mercy, balance, and education
Avoidance of fanaticism
“God is leading His people back to Eden step by step. Health reform is progressive, not destructive. Those who depend on animals for livelihood are not required to destroy their means of support. They should advance in light, avoid flesh eating, practice kindness to animals, and move steadily toward God’s ideal—without fanaticism or condemnation.”
Truth never requires cruelty, waste, or confusion.
Reform never destroys livelihoods overnight.
God leads—He does not drive.