Which is mostly what used to be, 10 years ago. Closures, map, fold, etc. Before Haskell and Clojure like immutability and extra trimmings became fashionable...
In 1995 or even 2000 era LISP discussions you rarely if ever see those other concerns about FP that hipster functional programmers bring forward today.
(I guess it's also something that was helped by Moore's Law style speed development slowing down and the advancements in multicores...)
Quite right, back on those days FP was Smalltalk (yes really), Scheme, Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, Caml Light (no OCaml yet), Standard ML and Miranda (no Haskell yet).
Which like you mention is where I point those hipsters to.
Then again, all new generations think they know best.
FP doesn't even have a definition (though pure-FP does, but it, too, can be a bit ambiguous and depends on how you define effects). FP is mostly accepted to be those patterns practiced by people in the FP community. I heard someone deeply involved with FP say, "FP is more a community than a well-defined programming style".
Sequence has much the same extensions available on it as other collections.
I did a tutorial a week or so ago (it's not online yet, unfortunately) on FP in Kotlin. We wrote a little app to do IntelliSense style autocompletion on an n-gram model. The core code was purely functional and used lazyness as well.
I suspect "does Kotlin support FP" is one of those questions that's doomed to turn into a no-true-scotsman thing: whatever support is available will be considered insufficient by true FP fans :-) But it's good enough to let you write code in a typical functional style in many cases, with little cost.