Dust in the Eyes or a Central Issue?

In a recent video (link to video) Pastor Christian McShaffrey quoted Dean Burgon.  McShaffrey suggested that the question "which Textus Receptus," is a distraction from the real issue.

Dean Burgon wrote (link to text of his book): 

Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by asking,—Whether we consider the Textus Receptus infallible? The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it. Any Text would equally suit our present purpose. Any Text would show the old uncials perpetually at discord among themselves. To raise an irrelevant discussion, at the outset, concerning the Textus Receptus:—to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N. T.:—to make sport about the copies which he employed:—all this kind of thing is the proceeding of one who seeks to mislead his readers:—to throw dust into their eyes:—to divert their attention from the problem actually before them:—not—(as we confidently expect when we have to do with such writers as these)—the method of a sincere lover of Truth. To proceed, however.

Dean Burgon says that the unrevisability of the textus receptus is a distraction.  It is a distraction from Dean Burgon's position.  It is not a distraction from a "TR Only" position.  It would only be fair for McShaffrey to piggyback on Burgon's statement if his position was like Burgon's, but is it?  Is McShaffrey open to revisions to the Textus Receptus?  

On top of that the question of "which TR" is not the same as the question "whether we consider the Textus Receptus infallible."  

Dean Burgon was open to revisions to the Textus Receptus.  In fact the next paragraphs of the same work state:

We deem it even axiomatic, that, in every case of doubt or difficulty—supposed or real—our critical method must be the same: namely, after patiently collecting all the available evidence, then, without partiality or prejudice, to adjudicate between the conflicting authorities, and loyally to accept that verdict for which there is clearly the preponderating evidence. The best supported Reading, in other words, must always be held to be the true Reading: and nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall clearly outweigh the evidence for retaining it. We are glad to know that, so far at least, we once had Bp. Ellicott with us. He announced (in 1870) that the best way of proceeding with the work of Revision is, to make the Textus Receptus the standard,—departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary. We ourselves mean no more. Whenever the evidence is about evenly balanced, few it is hoped will deny that the Text which has been in possession for three centuries and a half, and which rests on infinitely better manuscript evidence than that of any ancient work which can be named,—should, for every reason, be let alone.

Burgon had a presumption in favor of the TR, but it was not a conclusive presumption.  A "TR Only" position that has no room for revisions to the textus receptus must identify "which TR" and cannot piggyback on Burgon's claim of distraction.

I am not clear on whether McShaffrey's position is in alignment with Burgon's or not.  He is clearly vexed by the "KJV only" label as evidenced by his article on the topic (link).  Moreover, that same article specifically disavows the idea that the textus receptus was the result of a second work of inspiration (“I suppose that every protestant minister believes his preferred edition of the Greek NT is inspired. If you are asking if I believe in some kind of “second work” of inspiration like the Ruckmanites, I do not.”).  On the other hand, when discussing the categories provided by my friend, James White, in his book "The King James Only Controversy," McShaffrey edited the Group #3 description with a parenthetical in this way: "Group #3: “Textus Receptus Only” – This group believes that the underlying Greek text of the KJV has been supernaturally (note: I would use the word “providentially”) preserved over time." 

If that's McShaffrey's position, it's unclear how he could possibly be able to agree with Burgon that the textus receptus can and should be revised when critical considerations shows that it is clearly necessary. 

Where is the revision work by the "Kept Pure in All Ages Conference" crowd?  Maybe they have been doing some of this work.  It looks more like they are just circling the wagons around what has become (in their minds) an unassailable text.  I hope I'm mistaken about that.

*** Updated August 22, 2022
The question, "which TR," is literally the starting place of any discussion about TR revisions/improvements. I understand that it's popular in TR circles to just dismiss the question as disingenuous - as a mere debate tactic or the like. I recall that such an answer was given to Mark Ward's posing of the question, particularly given his follow up asserting that he had not received an answer.

As for which TR, certainly some TR folks do give an answer. Doug Wilson has argued for the Stephanus 1550. Robert Vaughn seems to prefer Scrivener's 1894, and I seem to recall Truelove sharing Vaugh's preference. I would say that DW is an outlier of TR defenders. Riddle seems to endorse Vaughn's response to the question, which essentially says the answer is Scrivener's 1894.

I would point out that Vaugh states, at fn 15: "For example, I believe there could be changes introduced, but do not believe they can be profitably agreed upon by the aggregate of King James Bible readers. Therefore, leave it alone. "

http://www.jeffriddle.net/.../article-r-l-vaughn-why...

That idea that if changes can't be agreed upon by the aggregate of King James Bible readers then we should "leave it alone," is something I trust Pastor McShaffrey would distance himself from.

Moreover, it seems like that comment that changes could but shouldn't be made is contradictory to the version of providential preservation that I've heard advocated by Truelove and others of the group.

I can appreciate a reluctance to answer the question (from those who are reluctant to answer it), if the answer is going to be "Scrivener's 1894 with minor further revisions," because that answer has no way in principle of distinguishing itself from the NA28, as the NA28 can be considered the TR with minor further revisions (not minor relative to the differences between the TR and DW's TR, but still minor). On the other hand, if the answer is that it must rigidly be Scrivener's 1894 (without any differences), there's simply no way to defend the merits of that position. Likewise, to say that the differences from Scrivener's 1894 must be less than some threshold size or importance is plainly to set up an arbitrary standard for what is minor and what is major.

I also appreciate that there is a gut intuition to say, "the lond ending of Mark is not minor" or "the woman caught in adultery is not minor" or the "Johannine Comma is not minor," or again "the doxology of the Lord's prayer is not minor." On the other hand, considering the length of the New Testament, those truly are minor differences. They may be differences that are important to a particular TR fan, but they are minor differences. Moreover, we would reject (and I hope, dear reader, you are part of the "we" here) the idea that the text we use should simply be whatever the aggregate of KJV readers can agree to. Instead, we ought to do as the Reformers tried to do and seek out and follow the original reading of the text, even if it means making minor revisions to the text we have been using.