Is it better to admit to a truth, or not admit to a truth
in which the outcome could possibly have a cause & effect of many in their thinking.
which is right?

Dandelion

yes and no or maybe no and yes. I think the hypothetical situation (not known to us) is too vague to make a concrete decision.

It all depends on what the truth is.

(shades of Clinton's impeachment hearing)

If what we perceive as the truth might seriously harm another person if revealed to them, then it is best to keep silent.

Doctors, for example, are faced with this dilemma.

A person who has terminal cancer if told he/she has only 6 months to live many times will die within that time. Some patients just give up trying, others die peacefully in the Lord, while some struggle to live, even fighting God, and die a miserable death.

However, my aunt who was told that she had terminal cancer and would die within six months, lived 10 years longer.

Did you guys hear the Clinton joke:

Clinton dies and meets St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.

"Let me in," he says.

St. Peter asks, "Why should we let you into heaven?"

Clinton responds, "Well I did not do anything that is seriously wrong, and besides it all depends on the meaning of the word 'is.'"

St. Peter replies:

Well, let me put it this way,

We will send you to a place that is not too hot,
We will not say that it is forever,
And we will not say that it is hell.

Perhaps I should bring this excellent question back on topic.

And ask further:

How do we know the truth?

If we believe that Jesus Christ is truly God, and also realize that admitting this truth may lead to our martyrdom, then we have no choice but to admit the truth and face possible martyrdom.