Do trust and proof go hand in hand?  Let me explain.  Recently I was
given the statement that in a relationship "trust is something that is
earned by time and and proof."  I maintain that in a relationship
trust comes through a period of time by looking at the other person's
action and behavior and that proof, i.e., prove A or prove B should
not need to be done on one's part unless there is concern to do so. 
For example, someone is caught in a lie.  If A or B is proved then
trust is removed from a relationship and what is left is always
proving oneself. Is this reasoning on trust and proof and the person's
position to not prove A or B reasonable?

Dear hereisdoug, 

As anything that has to do with relationships, there could be several
answers to the question, and I'd be grateful if other Google
Researchers would share their opinion, that might be different than
mine, on the subject.

Trust, in a dictionary definition, is : - 
"... The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence
placed in one: violated a public trust.
One in which confidence is placed. 
Reliance on something in the future; hope... " (Source: Dictionary.com
- http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=trust&r=67).

Proof is "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an
assertion as true." (same source -
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=proof&r=67).

Analysing the meaning of the two terms, one understand that in
relationship, they could be contradictory or complimentary. If a
partner needs evidences in order to accept the other's claims (for
example, regarding commitment), that means that he doesn't "rely" or
"hopes" on the other.

The demands of the sides in romantic (or other) personal relationships
are not the same as relationships between strangers. Between
strangers, one needs proofs, in order to trust the others that they'd
commit. Between people who are supposed to be close, this level should
be over: proofs are not necessary. One doesn't need this stage, to
reach the emotional stage of setting up hopes and relying on the
other.

If from some reason this reliance has been broken (not particularly by
this partner - it could be that a former partner caused damage to the
"trust level" of the person), he would probably retreat to stage I, of
seeking proofs and evidences, as reassurances that this particular
partner is trustworthy.

In other words, I must say I agree with your analysis. Usually, when
proof is needed in close relationships, it's because the "higher"
stage of trust was broken.

Recommendations and search strategy: 
I used mostly relationships sites, such as
http://www.relationship-tips.com/ and
http://emotional.lifetips.com/OurGurus.asp to understand more (as well
as to be sure, the dictionary definitions). I recommend you'll also
consult with the managers of these sites, both experts on their field
who give *free* advice on the subjects.

Please contact me if you need further information - I was glad to
help.

I will say this answer fits well with what I was looking for.  The
answer was clear and when I expressed the contents with the party I
was engaged with the subject was cleared up.  I am glad I found this
service.

It looks like someone's even developed "trust, the board game" here.
http://www.thegettingrealgame.com

Proof goes with trust only to the extent that you doubt your own
feelings about a person, and to the extent that you can rely on the
kind of proof that is available.