In a word: No.
I don't think they misunderstood Return of the Jedi and tried to erase it. Rather, they picked up some of the strains out there in expanded universe stories - an imperial remnant that can resurge to cause problems. And they did so because any sequels, whether in the EU or in official movies, need some kind of conflict. The EU had imperial remnants, the Yuzhan Vong, and Leia and Han's kids - including one spiraling into the Dark Side - to generate most of that conflict. The sequel trilogy incorporated 2 of those 3.
People are free to disagree with how they generated conflict or portrayed the characters 30 years later. But there's no real basis to say they tried to erase RotJ.
If I recall, JJ Abrahms said he LOVED Star Wars. However, he also said he loved Empire Strikes back...BUT...did not like The Return of the Jedi. This is why I was prompted to respond how I did, because it was the sentiment of the post (no good Star Wars after 1980) that was reflected by JJ Abrahms.
Now, with the First movie, he REALLY loved it from what I understand. He didn't really care for Star Trek (which is irony as I think he probably got the job for Star Wars based on how well he resurrected or at least revived what others saw as a dying movie franchise at the time), but really loved Star Wars itself.
And I think he nailed the Star Wars FEEL because of that love of the first two films. However, the part they missed is that Star Wars is a fairy tale, and the Return of the Jedi is the end of that fairy tale. You don't continue a fairy tale by saying the Happily Ever after was a bust (Han and Leia separating, Luke giving up on the personal growth he already had through two movies, etc).
RJ is tougher to see. He absolutely LOVES film (at least from what I see). He GETS film. Thus, as Star Wars is a significant film, he loves it. He Loves Star Wars as a film, but he doesn't LOVE Star Wars from what I see. He is very good at what he does, but that doesn't mean he was the right fit for a film to follow what Abrahms did. Their styles conflict. I tend to like Abrahms style a LOT. I can see the strengths of RJ's style. But, it is blatantly obvious they were trying to erase the Return of the Jedi.
It was an attempt at a soft reboot. That is one way to have a reboot, erase what happened and reboot the entire thing again. It is a similar to what they did with James Bond...but I FEEL Broccoli did it better
PS: Now granted, I actually don't think JJ would have gone full on ball to erase the gains of the Return of the Jedi (his initial take on what to do when Luke appears is said to have been VASTLY different then what we saw, which was supposedly done because Johnson asked him to do it that way). You can also see he tries to change that vector in Rise of Skywalker...but the initial foundation of some of the items doing away with Return of the Jedi are there in a very strong fashion. This is the problem when you have different directors with very different styles and approaches take the reins in the same movie franchise sometimes. Their views clash, and in this case, became an unorganized mess. JJ DID love the first two Star Wars films and that actually shows. His style is a more fast paced and hectic action type. Johnson is more of a Hollywood guy. He isn't there to do a happy film, but to integrate the aspects of hollywood and callbacks to film in his creations. He loves the art of it. He went a way which was opened by The Force Awakens, but not necessarily the way Abrahms was intending. While the Force awakens set the foundation of it, the Last Jedi sealed the crushing of the Return of the Jedi. The Rise of Skywalker was just an attempt to salvage what was left, and that left a lot of people unhappy as it didn't really gel with the Last Jedi either. I love it because Abrahms still nails the Star Wars feel in my opinion, but many see it as a jumbled mess because it is not really true to the themes set in the Last Jedi. It makes the Sequel Trilogy a jumbled mess of sorts. The visions were not coherent throughout the Trilogy.
