Currently, my take on it is that all of the theories on the creation of the moon have issues with them. The current dominant theory has to do with a large asteroid striking the earth early on. This is then used to explain the tilt in the Earth's axis and the moon's elemental similarity to the earth. There are however major problems with this theory which is why it is not universally accepted. For example, the unusually low composition of iron does not match available data and the difference in the tilt of the axis of the earth and the lunar orbit pose another problem.

The problem with assuming that you have a completely separate formation is that the isotopic profile of oxygen is largely similar. This would suggest that the moon was not left-over dust which condensed outside the well of the initial pool of that which became earth.

My own thinking though is that the shape of the moon and its orbital profile suggest a separate formation regardless of the isotopic problems. The moon's orbit is no further off the ecliptic than any planet's suggesting it formed directly from the same disk which formed the rest of the planets. The isotopic profile might be soluble if the moon formed far enough out that only the very heavy elements were drawn out of the original dust ball and back to earth.

So I favor the (largely currently out of favor) condensation theory.