“If they can’t find an open, candid, and supportive place to work through honest questions, that’s tragic,” says Fluhman. “We stigmatize doubt to the point that people feel guilty for even having the questions. That’s not conducive to spiritual growth.”
Can it be different though?
If belief is a virtue, and non-belief is bad, how can doubting belief be okay. It's akin to saying that high-blood pressure is bad, but a sedentary lifestyle, consuming large amounts of sodium, and stress are all okay, unless you cross the line into hypertension.
Or think of it this way. Is the person who has a testimony that is riddled with doubts better than the person who has all those same doubts but disbelieves. What if they simply say they don't know in face of all those doubts?
How much sense does it make to say that the end result is bad, but the main definitional contributing factor is okay?