A few additional comments:
With regard to dust kicked up by landing, remember that there is no air on the moon to make "clouds" of dust. The dust will tend to just blast away toward the horizon, rather than make a billowing cloud that engulfs the lander. That behavior was evident on the Apollo LEM landings.
But, even if the dust just blows away, it is still important to not dig a big, and perhaps unexpectedly non-uniform depression in the surface the vehicle is going to land on.
Anyway, dust did get into everything in the Apollo landing expeditions. And, it is very abrasive. So, elevators with guides on the sides of the ship sound like trouble waiting to cause a jam, Probably better to use a deployable arm and a winch to raise and lower a platform. The Apollo astronauts just used a ladder. Remember, 1/6th Earth gravity.
Regarding the configuration of the lander. I tend to agree that it doesn't make sense to land on the moon with the mass of the engines and fuel tanks needed to do the trans -lunar insertion and lunar orbit entry burns. But, what if that stage is then used independently to return to Earth orbit to pick up another stage that is loaded with fuel to transfer to lunar orbit? In other words, a reusable tanker that takes fuel from Earth orbit to Moon orbit, to keep resupplying the lander for multiple missions between the lunar "Gateway" satellite and the lunar surface? The fuel needed for return of that stage to Earth orbit from Moon orbit would take away from the mass available for the lander. But, it would save launching a lot of stuff from Earth's surface to Earth orbit. Assuming that refueling in orbit is achieved and become reliable, this trans lunar tanker concept seems like the economical way to support a "permanent" lunar outpost. Its first trip takes a lander, and subsequent trips take a big fuel tank (well 2 propellant tanks, actually).